INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.

University M icrofilm s International
A Bell & Howell Information C om pany
300 North Z eeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Order N um ber 94S1234

A n exp loratory stu d y o f self-d irected learn ing read iness and
p ed a g o g ica l e x p e cta tio n s a b o u t lea rn in g am on g a d u lt in m a te
learners in M ich igan
Dixon, Wills Barrington, Ph.D.
Michigan State University, 1992

UMI

300 N. Zeeb Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF
SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING READINESS AND
PEDAGOGICAL EXPECTATIONS ABOUT LEARNING
AMONG A DULT INMATE LEARNERS IN MICHIGAN
By
Wills Barrington Dixon

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
M i c higan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education
1992

ABSTRACT
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING READINESS
AND PEDAGOGICAL EXPECTATIONS ABOUT LEARNING
AMONG ADULT INMATE LEARNERS IN MICHIGAN
By
Wills Barrington Dixon

Self-Directed Learning

(SDL)

is a process in which

individuals, with or without the help of others,
initiative in diagnosing their learning needs,
goals,

take the

formulating

identifying human and material resources and

evaluating learning outcomes.

Pedagogical expectations are

culturally influenced ideas people have about the kinds of
activities that provide meaningful learning.
The purpose of this exploratory study was to
investigate the relationships which exist between the self­
directed learning readiness

(SDLR) of adult inmate learners

and their expectations about learning,
sex,

their age and their

in order to provide useful information for continued

research into the use of SDL among inmate learners.

The

participants were a sample of 228 male and female adult
inmates and involved 21 educational and vocational programs
in various Michigan correctional institutions.
Three separate instruments measured the students'
degree of SDLR and their preferences for the level of
formality and kind of learning experience perceived as
providing the most important learning.
examined were:

The major areas

(1) level of formality preferred;

learning experience preferred;

(2) kind of

(3) relationship between SDLR

and level of formality;

(4) relationship between SDLR and

kind of learning experience;

(5) relationship between SDLR

and amount of formal schooling;

(6) relationship between

level of formality and kind of learning experience;
relationship between SDLR and the subjects'

age;

relationship between SDLR and the subjects'

sex.

(7)

(8)
One-way

ANOVA was used to test for significant relationships.

The

.05 level of significance was used.
The results of the study showed that the subjects
considered low-formality settings more conducive to
learning,

as opposed to high formality, while sharing was

the kind of learning experience most preferred,
to input and self-awareness.

as opposed

No significant relationship

was found between SDLR and level of formality.

No

significant relationship was found between SDLR and kind of
learning experience nor between level of formality and kind
of learning experience.

Statistically significant

relationships were found beteeen SDLR and amount of formal
schooling,

age and sex.

It is concluded that

(1) the mean degree of Self-

Directed Learning Readiness of a large heterogeneous group
cannot be predicted by level of formality or by kind of
learning experience;

(2) some prediction can apparently be

made by the amount of formal schooling;

(3) there may be a

relationship between SDLR and age, as well as sex.

Various

recommendations were made with regards to continued research
on Self-Directed Learning among adult inmate learners.

This dissertation is dedicated
to the loving memory of my Grandmother,
Ruth Bestly Dixon.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my sincere appreciation and heartfelt
thanks to my major professor and committee chairman,
Eldon Nonnamaker.

I am very grateful

Dr.

for his patience,

understanding and loving correction of weaknesses.

Without

his support and supervision this dissertation would not be
possible.
To Paul who has always been prodding,
assistance and encouragement,

to Yvonne for her

to Herman for his constant

interest and kind words.
To the members of my guidance committee,
White,

Howard Hickey and Gloria Smith.

Drs. Kay

They have made me

feel like they cared about me as a person,

as well as about

my scholarly pursuits.
To Mark,

Crystal,

Dahlia and Francoise, who from the

start have made this possible in their own special,
sacrificial way.
And finally,

to my wife,

Shawn, who has patiently and

lovingly supported me throughout the years.

v

I love you!

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION

................................

1

Background of the Problem

............................

1

Statement of the Problem

............................

3

Purpose of the S t u d y ................................... 4
Research Questions and Hypotheses

..................

7

Situational Background

..............................

9

Students in the System

.

10

Importance of the S t u d y ................................ 11
Delimitations and L i m i t a t i o n s .......................... 12
Demographic Characteristics

.........................

13

A s s u m p t i o n s ............................................ 13
Definition of T e r m s ...................................14
O v e r v i e w .............................................. 16
CHAPTER TWO - REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E .................. 18
Characteristics of Participants in
Adult L e a r n i n g ....................................... 18
Self-Directed Learning Among Adults

................

20

Expectations About Learning .........................

23

Nature of the Adult Inmate Learner

................

28

.........................

30

Applicable Research Studies

S u m m a r y .................................................3 2

vi

Page
CHAPTER THREE - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................
Description of Methodology
Research Design

34

.........................

34

.......................................

35

Variables Under Investigation
Independent Variables

......................

35

................................

36

Dependent V a r i a b l e ................ . ................. 37
Research Statements and Null Hypotheses

...........

37

S a m p l e .................................................. 38
Instrumentation

.......................................

Research Procedure and Data Collection
Data Analysis

...........

46

. .................................... . . 49

Methodological Assumptions.... .......................
Limitations

39

50

..................................... 51

S u m m a r y ................................................ 5 2
CHAPTER FOUR - PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
OF THE D A T A ................................................ 5 3
O v e r v i e w .............................................. 53
Sample P r o f i l e ........... . ...........................53
Data Analysis Methods

................................

56

Data A n a l y s i s ........................................... 57
S u m m a r y ................................................ 68
CHAPTER FIVE - OVERVIEW, SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS,
IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . .
...................
Overview

69

.................. .................. 69

Summary of Purpose and Procedure

..................

Summary of Findings With Conclusions

vii

...............

69
71

Page
CHAPTER FIVE - CONTINUED
Implications for Future
Recommendations

R e s e a r c h ...................... 78

.......................................

79

APPENDIX A

- DATA COLLECTION S I T E S ........................8 2

APPENDIX B

- S D L R S .......................................... 85

APPENDIX C

- INTERPRETATION OF SDLRS.....................

88

APPENDIX D

- EXPECTATIONS OF LEARNING INSTRUMENT . . . .

90

APPENDIX E

- UCRIHS CONSENT F O R M ......................... 100

APPENDIX F

- PARTICIPANTS CONSENT FORM ...............

101

..............................................

103

BIBLIOGRAPHY

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Page
TABLE 3.1
Possible Choices for Level
of Formality and Kind of
Learning Experience ................................

41

TABLE 4.1
Age of Subjects With a
Frequency Distribution
In Five Year I n c r e m e n t s ........................... 54

TABLE 4.2
SDLRS - Self-Directed
Learning Readiness
Scale S c o r e s ....................................... 55

TABLE 4.3
Frequency Distribution for
Level of F o r m a l i t y ................................ 5 9

TABLE 4.4
Frequency Distribution for
Preference for Kind of
Learning Experience
..............................

60

TABLE 4.5
Analysis of Variance on
the Relationship Between
Mean SDLRS and Level
of Formality
....................................... 6 3

TABLE 4.6
Analysis of Variance on
the Relationship Between
Mean SDLRS and Kind of
Learning Experience ................................

ix

64

Page

TABLE 4.7
Analysis of Variance on
the Relationship Between
Mean SDLRS and Amount of
Formal Schooling

65

TABLE 4.8
Analysis of Variance on
the Relationship Between
Level of Formality and
Kind of Learning E x p e r i e n c e ....................... 66

TABLE 4.9
Analysis of Variance in
the Relationship Between
SDLRS and Age
.....................................6 7

TABLE 4.10
Analysis of Variance on
the Relationship Between
SDLRS and S e x ....................................... 6 8

x

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The education of prison inmates is becoming
increasingly recognized worldwide as an important practice
in the field of adult education.

In 1984,

The International

Journal of Adult Education proclaimed correctional education
as a top priority area of interest
the international level,

(Hall,

1984).

Also,

at

the Open University in England

began in 1984 to sponsor international seminars involving
experts in correctional education from around the world.
The first of these seminars was titled,

"Strategies for

Education Within Prison Regimes," and the program
al.,

1984)

covered areas from organizing and managing

correctional education to issues of policy,
methodology,
education,
learning,
learner,

(Normie et

and research.

practice,

The theory and practice of adult

and the accompanying principles of adult
stress the development of self-directedness to the

including emphasis on one's taking increasing

responsibility for designing and evaluating one's own
learning and, in general,

learning how to learn and not

merely how to be taught.

Unfortunately,

little has been

written on how one m i g h t effectively apply the principles of
self-directed learning to a correctional setting.

Background of the Problem
Educational programs in prisons present,
problems,

a participation problem.

among other

Many prisoners'

ability

2

to learn is hampered by a lack of basic reading and
computational skills.

Research has increasingly shown a

link between learning disabilities and delinquency.

Thus,

educators in adult correctional settings must cope with
inmates who have neither academic skills nor attitudes
appropriate for learning

(MacNeil,

1980, pp.

208-221).

The problems of adult education in prison are further
exacerbated by other factors.

Adult inmates are generally

well beyond the age associated with their expected
educational attainment.

It is not unusual for a thirty-

year-old prisoner to be performing at a fourth or fifth
grade level.

Very few available texts are appropriate for

such adults and the inappropriateness of the material to the
age and interest of the inmates often turn many away from
educational goals.

Adult learning curricula are unlike

typical school curricula, but prison budgets seldom have the
flexibility to permit the purchase of specialized aids and
consequently,

educational programs often have to make do

with inadequate,

outdated,

Todd Clear and George Cole

and largely ill-suited materials.
(199 0) indicated that

disciplinary problems which are routine in the usual
classroom are often worse in the prison setting.
"Disruption, verbal abuse and intractability are ways in
which participants frequently assert their maturity in the
face of programs that treat them as children"
Cole,

1990, p. 346).

It was

(Clear and

further pointed out by the

authors that education is often considered by both prisoners

and custody staff as an undesirable program assignment,
carrying a status that aggravates the difficulties in the
prison classroom.
Corrections

Data from the Michigan Department of

(MDOC) Annual Report

(1990)

suggest that it is a

very small percentage of inmates who make adequate use of
the educational opportunities in the prison system.
the reasons

One of

for this very limited participation is that most

of these inmates do not have environments or opportunities
which encourage them to develop,

grow and learn to take

increasing initiative and responsibility for their own
learning.
learner,

greater participation in adult learning can be

realized.
Deguidi

In increasing the self-directedness of the adult

In stressing the importance of self-directedness,

(1904)

referred to the "transforming of correctional

institutions into centers for personal growth and
transformation"

(p. 71).

Statement of the Problem
There are many barriers contributing to the limited use
of educational programs in the MDOC prison system by adult
inmates.

MacNeil

(1980)

has shown that adult learners who

are allowed to become actively involved in the determination
of what and how they learn become more involved in the
overall learning process.

Self-Directed Learning Projects

have been used in other adult settings

(Deguid,

1984)

to

increase participation in learning situations and is one
alternative which educators in the correctional system may
employ for the same purpose.

The particular problem to

4
which this study is addressed is the determination of
characteristics adult inmates have which would enable them
to successfully participate in Self-Directed Learning
Operationally,

(SDL).

SDL is a process in which individuals take

the initiative of formulating learning goals,

identifying

human and material resources for learning, choosing and
implementing learning strategies and evaluating learning
outcomes

(Knowles,

1975, p. 18).

from the study will, hopefully,
be used by educators

The information obtained
serve as a guide which may

for developing instruments to identify

inmates capable of benefitting from SDL.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to provide valuable and
relevant information for further exploration of how adult
educators may be able to identify adult inmates who can
benefit from SDL strategies.

There will be two major

objec t i v e s :
1.

To determine the level of Self-Directed Learning
Readiness

(SDLR)

of sample of adult inmate

learners.

This measure will be obtained with the

use of the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale
(SDLRS), a 34-item Likert scale designed by Lucy
Guglielmino

(1981)

to determine the extent to which

individuals picture themselves as possessing
factors associated with self-directedness.
2.

To determine the relationships which exist between
Self-Directed Learning Readiness and other

5

variables.
a)

The variables are:

Inmates'

expectations about learning with

respect to three kinds of learning experiences.
This is based on Ted Ward's conceptual
framework of adult learning.

Ward

(1974)

suggested that for effective learning to take
place,

there must be three types of experiences

involved:
- Input learning experiences which involve
learners in receiving or coming into contact
with some new information.
- Self-awareness learning experiences which
involve the learner in reflecting upon his/
her current situation.
“ Sharing learning experiences which involve
learners putting into their own words or
acting upon some new information,

ideas or

in s ights.
b)

Inmates'

expectations about learning with

respect to two levels of formality.

Based on

Ward's conceptual framework of learning,
"levels of formality" refers to how structured,
teacher controlled and authority oriented an
instructional setting is

(Ward,

197 4).

levels of formality-~High Formality
Low Formality

Two

(HF) and

(LF)--were used in this study.

Measures of the subjects'

expectations

concerning levels of formality and kind of
learning experience were obtained by the use of
two instruments designed specifically for this
study.

The instruments,

studies

(McKean,

1982)

adapted from previous

1977, Wilson,

1978 and McCue,

are similar in construction and consist

of pairs of photo pictures depicting adult
learners and their instructors involved in
various learning situations.

Accompanying each

photo is a caption with the words of the
instructor describing the activity.

The

subjects are asked to indicate which of each
pair of photo pictures they perceive to be
providing the most important learning.

A value

is assigned to each choice.
Inmates'

amount of formal schooling as

indicated by the number of years the subjects
completed in public or private school and
broken down into the following categories:
0-08

years

9-11

years

12 years
13 - 14 years
15 - 16 years
Based on the relationships found to be
existing among the variables,

implications and

recommendations have been made regarding the

7
use of SDL by teachers and educators in the
MDOC.

Research Questions and Hypotheses
The following research questions were posed by the
researcher to guide the study's inquiry.
1.

Do adult inmate learners perceive any one level of

formality as providing more important learning than the
other level?
2.

Do adult inmate learners perceive any one kind of

learning experience as providing more important learning
than other kinds of learning experience?
3.

Is there a significant relationship between the

subjects' mean SDLRS and their choice of level of formality?
4.

Is there a significant relationship between the

subjects' mean SDLRS and their choice of kind of kearning
experience?
5.

Is there a significant relationship between the

subjects' mean degree of SDLRS and their amount of formal
schooling?
6.
subjects'

Is there a significant relationship between the
choice of level of formality and their choice of

kind of learning experience?
7.

Is there a significant relationship between the

subjects' mean degree of SDLRS and their age?
8.

Is there a significant relationship between the

subjects' mean degree of SDLRS and their sex?

In the present study multiple regression and analysis
of variance procedures,

as well as descriptive statistics,

were used to analyze the data.

This procedure investigated

the relationship among the following variables:

(1)

Subjects' mean Self-Directed Learning Readiness Score
(SDLRS),

the single dependent variable;

of Level of Formality,

independent variable;

choice of Kind of Learning Experience,
(4) Subjects'

(2) Subjects'

(5) Subjects' Age,

Subjects'

Sex,

(3) Subjects'

independent variable;

amount of Formal Schooling,

variable;

choice

independent

independent variable;

(6)

independent variable.

The following null hypotheses were investigated:
Subjects will not choose any one Level of Formality
as providing more important learning than the other Level of
Formality.
Subjects will not choose any one Kind of Learning
Experience as providing more important learning than other
Kind of Learning Experience.
There will be no significant relationship between
the subjects' mean degree of SDLRS and their choice of Level
of Formality as providing more important learning.
There will be no significant relationship between
the subjects' mean SDLRS and their choice of Kind of
Learning Experience as providing more important learning.
H,_

There will be no significant relationship between

the subjects' mean SDLRS and their Amount of Formal
Schooling.

Hg

There will be no significant relationship between

the subjects'

choice of Level of Formality and their choice

of Kind of Learning Experience as providing more important
learning.
There will be no significant relationship between
the subjects' mean degree of SDLRS and their age.
Hg

There will be no significant relationship between

the subjects' mean degree of SDLRS and their sex.

Situational Background
While the security of residents is the primary function
of all correctional institutions,

rehabilitation or

treatment efforts are encouraged and even fostered as long
as they do not interfere with the primary custodial
functions.

Part of the treatment program in all

institutions is an education program which emphasizes basic
reading,

GED preparation and vocational training.

The secondary nature of education within the Michigan
Department of Corrections

(MDOC)

affects both the structure

and function of the educational program within the
institutions.

Custody restrictions determine who will attend

classes, when classes will be held and when a student will
be pulled out of classes, either to attend other functions,
to be disciplined,

to go to court, or to be transferred to

another institution.

All of these actions can transpire

with no prior warning to either the student or the teacher.
The educational program and the teachers'

operation within

that program are forced to adapt to the mandates of custody.

They must make accommodations for the student who is gone
for a day, a week, or even several months.
Calvert

(1982), the transitory student or the intermittent

student is not the exception,
rule;

According to

as in public school,

but the

few students are able to complete their education with

no interruptions.
in programming,

Because of these constant interruptions

the Michigan Department of Corrections has

been compelled to develop a standardized,

open-ended

curriculum for all schools throughout the correctional
network.

The system adopted by the academic schools is a

competency-based system utilizing standardized modules and
reference materials for each course taught in any of the
scho o l s .
The ultimate goal of the high school program is a GED
certificate and a vocational trade.

The GED was implemented

in lieu of the high school diploma because the average
sentence being served in prison is approximately three
years,

too short a time period for completion of a high

school program.

Associate and Bachelor's Degree programs

are offered by local community and private colleges.

Students in the System
While a few of the students attending institutional
schools may have been students at the time of their
incarceration,

thus their education was interrupted only

because they were sent to prison, most were school dropouts
before their incarceration.

Some lack only a few credit

hours for completion of their high school diploma, while

11
others have never advanced past the sixth grade level.

Some

were involved in special education programs of their local
schools, while others were involved in advanced academics in
high school.

The former may spend their entire sentence

trying to learn to read, while the latter may spend only a
minimum amount of time in the prison schools before
acquiring a GED and progressing into a junior college
program.
One thing all students have in common is that they have
all relinquished some degree of freedom of movement to be
confined for a time in an institution.
freedom,

according to Calvert

myriad ways.

This loss of

(1983), manifests itself in

Many are seeing their families disintegrate

and are thwarted in their efforts to preserve their homes.
Others are trying to gain their freedom from prison through
the courts and must depend upon the efforts of others who,
in reality,

are not personally concerned about the welfare

of the inmate.

They dream of freedom and of returning to a

community which may be seeking ways to keep them from
returning.

Most inmates are often locked into self-

defeating patterns that prevent them from making use of
educational opportunities and need help often in
nontraditional ways to overcome these self-defeating
patterns.

Importance of the Study
This study provides information useful in the ongoing
research on Self-Directed Learning and the implementation of

12
Self-Directed Learning strategies.

Specifically,

the

entities expected to benefit from this study are the
individual

inmate learners, educators,

institution as a whole.

Since some people are by nature

more self-directed than others
essential

and the correctional

(Russell,

1988), it would be

for education providers to be able to identify

those inmates who would be most likely capable of
benefitting from Self-Directed Learning.
generated

The results

from this study may contribute to the body of

knowledge necessary for this purpose.

Delimitations and Limitations
There are delimitations and inherent limitations which
affected the outcome of this study.
Delimitations
First,

the sample of subjects represented a specific

population of adult felons in the MDOC, male and female
learners in selected adult education programs.

The selected

programs allowed for a sample of inmates with a wide range
of amount of formal schooling, which was representative of
the range within the general inmate population.

The

findings in this sample have limited generalizability to
similar inmate learners in institutions within the MDOC.
Limitations
The study is correlational, pointing to possible
relationships between variables and does not seek to
establish cause and effect relationships.
consists of four descriptive constructs:

The study
amount of formal

13
schooling,
experience,

levels of formality, kinds of learning
and degrees of self-directed learning readiness.

Finally,

only implications regarding the exploration of

self-directed learning is made from this study and final
questions about particular aspects of self-directed learning
design will have to await answers through experimental
studies.

Demographic Characteristics
The study involved a sample of 228 adult inmates,
males and 3 7 females,
in Southern Michigan

191

from various correctional institutions
(Appendix A) and were involved as

learners in various educational or vocational programs.

The

age range of the participants was from 21 to 5 4 years, while
years of formal schooling was between grade four and college
graduate.

Participation was voluntary and involved the

completion of three questionnaires before or after regular
class periods.

Assumptions
Five primary assumptions guided this investigation.
First,

the researcher assumed that for their own maximum

growth and development,

adult inmate learners ought to be

involved in self-directed learning and that to be able to
identify and understand their preferences regarding levels
of formality and kinds of learning experiences is an
important step in exploring self-directed learning
possibilities.

14
Secondly,

it is assumed that the three types of

learning experiences suggested by the Ward model of
effective learning

(input,

self-awareness and sharing)

are

necessary components to meaningful learning environments.
Thirdly,

it is assumed that a person's formal school

experiences has some relatedness to the degree of SDLR and
to the kinds of learning experiences such a person considers
important.
It is further assumed that the data gathering technique
of viewing pictures and statements and subsequently
responding to questions about them accurately measures a
person's response to levels of formality and types of
learning experiences.
Finally,

it is assumed that the SDLRS accurately

measures a person's degree of self-directedness.
Definition of Terms
Ethnopedagogy is a term coined by Berger

(1978)

and

refers to the need of a teacher/trainer to be able to
effectively adopt teaching/learning activities to the
cultural viewpoints and experiences of learners.
Expectations refer to those conscious and unconscious
evaluations which a person forms of another or of oneself,
which leads one to treat others in such a manner as though
the assessment were correct.

Expectations are estimates of

reality and imply the anticipation of the behavior most
likely to actually occur if certain circumstances are
created and put into action

(Finn,

1972, p.

390).

15
Pedagogical Expectations are what "a learner and
leader/teacher expects to be the sociology

(roles of a

teacher and learner), content and procedures of an
educational activity"

(McKean,

1977).

Adult Inmate Learners are male and female inmates in
institutions of the Michigan Department of Corrections who
are 21 years old and over, engaged in one or more organized
learning activities.
Learning refers to the acquisition of knowledge,
attitudes,
facts,
use

or skills and the mastering of behavior in which

ideas or concepts are made available for individual

(Verner,

1964).

Self-Directed Learning is a term used to describe
educational procedures in which the learner is the major
identifier of learning needs, desirable objectives,
beneficial applications.

and

In self-directed learning,

teachers and learners are involved in co-exploring the
solutions to needs.
Level of Formality refers to how formal,

structured, or

ritualized an instructional setting is perceived to be.
Instruments in this study will use pictures of instructional
activities that represent two levels of formality,
low.

For the sake of clarity,

high and

they will be labelled Low and

High levels of formality.
Amounts of Formal Schooling refers to the number of
years of formal schooling of the subjects of the study.

16
Types of Learning Experiences refers to experiences the
learner is engaged in.

Based on Ward's model, three types

of learning experiences will be represented in the
instrumentation:

input,

self-awareness,

and sharing.

All

three types of experiences are necessary for effective
le a r n i n g .
- Input experiences involve learners in receiving or
coming into contact with some new information.
- Self-Awareness

learning experiences involve the

learner in reflecting upon one's current
sit u a t i o n .
- Sharing learning experiences involve the learner
in putting into one's own words or acting upon
some new information,

ideas,

insights.

It is

believed that all three types of experiences are
necessary for effective learning
pp.

(McKean,

1977,

18-19).

Overview
The dissertation is composed of five chapters.
setting for the study is presented in Chapter I.

The

A research

problem was stated and a rationale for engaging in the study
was presented.

The basic research design and guiding

questions were also identified.
Chapter 2 includes a selected review of the literature
dealing with the characteristics of adult learners,
learners in correctional settings,

adult

studies in self-directed

learning and applicable research studies.

In Chapter 3 a description of the research methodology
is presented.

The sample of subjects and the research

instrument are discussed in detail.

Also included are the

steps in the development and validation of the research
instrument.

Field procedures and data

procedures are discussed,

collection

concluding with a description of

the kinds of statistical procedures used to analyze the
data.

The rationale

for the use of the selected statistical

procedures is also presented.
In Chapter 4 the findings of the study are presented.
The research questions are restated along with the
statistical hypotheses.

The results of the tests of the

hypotheses are reported along with their statistical
significance.

Descriptive statistics are reported which

indicate some trends that were not discovered through the
hypotheses testing.
Chapter 5 contains a brief summary of the discussion of
Chapters 1 through 4.

The findings are discussed,

conclusions reached, and implications and recommendations
s u ggested.

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The review of the literature covers related studies in
the following areas:
adult learning;

(b)

(a) characteristics of participants in
studies on self-directed learning;

expectations about learning;
correctional settings;

(c)

(d) adult learning in

(e) applicable research studies.

Characteristics of Participants in Adult Learning
The most closely related research literature focuses on
background characteristics of participants in adult
education.
(1965)

Such studies have been referred to by Knox

as a "Clientele Analysis."

The main thrust of such

studies is to identify differences between participants and
nonparticipants and to identify differences between
participants of different adult education programs.
Research on participation will be reviewed in this section
because of the inference that can be made that when adult
learners participate in a particular kind of program,

it is

probably because there is something about that program that
meets with their approval,

thus it is at least partially

consistent with their pedagogical expectations.
In terms of the relationship between amount of
schooling and use of certain kinds of instructional
approaches,

Brunner

(1959)

reports some research by Crile in

which she found that the percentage of persons listing
meetings as "the most helpful method of adult education"

18

19
increased with the educational level of the participants.
Brunner also states,

in summarizing various other studies,

that the lower the educational status of the participants in
a program,

the greater their desire for demonstrations or

case materials in teaching, regardless of the topic.
Carp,

Peterson and Roelfs

(1972)

attempted to identify

the relationship between amount of schooling and methods of
learning preferred or used.

They found that use of classes

and lectures increased with educational level, with 20% of
learners with only elementary school using lectures and
classes, but 41% of the college graduates doing so.

College

graduates rated on-the-job training lower than most of the
sample,

and those with only elementary schooling rated

discussion groups lower than most of the sample.

Preference

for lecture and classes by would-be learners followed a
similar distribution as the learners.
In looking at location of learning,

Richardson

in his research on cooperative extension programs,
that for both would-be

(1986)
found

learners and learners, the use of

school system increased with educational level.
found that the lower the level of schooling,

the

He also

the more people

who were not involved in adult education felt that low
grades in the past and

little or no enjoyment in studying

were barriers to their

participation.

Cross

(1981)

found that only one fourth of the people

who say they would like to learn prefer lectures,

and they

20

are the better educated people in the upper socio-economic
levels.
Dickinson and Verner

(1967)

found in a British Columbia

study that "years of schooling completed" did not
differentiate between dropouts and persistent attenders,
unless the length of the course was considered.

They found

that people with less schooling were more likely to drop out
of the longer courses.

Self-Directed Learning Among Adults
While the term self-directed learning has only come
into wide usage over the past two decades,

this approach to

learning is firmly rooted in the history of adult education.
Much of the current emphasis on self-directed learning
appears to have developed from a foundation laid by Tough's
(1979)

study of adult learning projects.

In his research,

Tough found that nearly 7 0% of the learning projects
undertaken by adult learners in his sample were planned
primarily by the learners themselves,

as opposed to a

teacher or some other human or nonhuman source.

This

awareness of a heavy involvement of "self" has stimulated
considerable interest in research on, and literature about,
the self-directed phenomenon.
Some theorists,

including Shattenberg and Tracey

(1987)

regard self-directed learning as a set of skills to be
mastered, while others,

including Cross

(1981)

and Mezirow

(1985) view it as an instructional methodology or process
that should be pursued both by instructors of adults and by

21
the students or learners themselves.

Mezirow

(1985)

states

that there is no such thing as a truly independent self­
directed learner,

since most adults do not possess an

adequate knowledge of the range of educational alternatives
available to them and are inexperienced in critically
examining the learning perspectives of their lives.
According to Hiemstra

(1985), recent research has shown

that most people have a tremendous ability and desire for
learning that is self-directed in nature.
Penland

(1978)

investigated the self-learning pattern

of adults who employ a wide range of community resources and
materials for independent learning.
conclusions drawn by Penland

One of the many

(1978) was that self-initiated

adult learners are highly goal-oriented and have very
individualistic patterns.

Johnstone and Rivera's

(1965)

work revealed a high incidence of self-directed learning
among adults.
Since 1971, numerous researchers have used learning
projects interview schedules with samples from various
segments of the adult population.
While traditional formal education for adults has been
accepted,

Tough

(1968,

1971)

to determine the following:

conducted a series of studies
if adults engage in educational

activities outside the formal setting; how many learning
projects a year were initiated;
project lasted;
started.

and,

how long each learning

reasons why the learning projects v/ere

He concluded that the typical individual engages

in eight learning projects a year with the range being from
one to 20 projects and with each project lasting an average
of 90 hours.

In addition, he reported that about 70% of the

learning projects were planned by the individual learner.
Adult learners gave the following reasons for initiating the
learning projects:

to complete a practical task

home improvement project),

to resolve a question

about foreign lands, unfamiliar animals,
advance in employment
se m inars).

(e.g., a
(e.g.,

etc.), or to

(e.g., attending non-college credit

His findings supported the belief that adults

can be and are self-directed learners.
Since Tough's seminal research in the field of adult
education was conducted,

there has been an increased

interest in this area.
Hammel

(1985)

investigated the self-directed learning

activities of physicians in an attempt to discern the extent
to which physicians use self-directed learning to remain
current.

The study reports that 89% of the learning

projects were learner planned and that physicians do a major
amount of their professional learning through self-directed
learning activities.

Other studies report similar findings

and include law enforcement officers
adults

(East,

(Walker,

1986; McGraw,

(Johnson,

1986), older

1982) , low income urban adults

1986).

While these studies yielded descriptive data
demonstrating a strong preference by adult learners for
self-direction,

it was only possible to speculate about

23

characteristics that contributed to a learners'
for self-directed learning.

preference

A major step in this research

direction was the development of the Self-Directed Learning
Readiness Scale
1981.

(SDLRS)

by Guglielmino in 1977,

revised in

The SDLRS, which will be employed in the present

study, was

found to discriminate between high and low

involvement in learning project activities, thus indicating
high predictive validity for the scale.

Hassan

(1981)

found

significant relationships between self-directed readiness
and the number of self-fulfillment projects,
level of formal education.
such as creativity,

as well as

High correlations with factors

originality and self-concept have been

demonstrated using the SDLRS.

Expectations About Learning
The literature suggests that the expectancy phenomenon
is present in learning situations.

A person gains

expectations about what is considered valid learning
experiences from numerous sources.

A learner's pedagogical

expectations are harmful when he or she lacks the ability to
accurately and flexibly take into account new evidence. A
person's degree of self-acceptance also influences the kinds
of learning experiences utilized.
other s - - p e e r s , parents,

In addition,

significant

teachers— help create a person's

view of what experiences constitute significant learning.
The strongest finding of studies looking at participant
characteristics is that there is a very high relationship
between amount of formal schooling and amount of adult

24
education participation
Rivera,
Okes,

1965; Knox,

1974; Hassan,

(Brunner,

1965; Carp,

1959; Johnstone and

Peterson and Roelfs,

1981; McQue,

1982 and Cross,

The Johnstone and Rivera study

(1965)

study on participant characteristics.

1972;

1984).

is the landmark

It consisted of "a

national survey of the educational activities of the adult
population,

based on a survey of the activities of members

of some 12,000 American households"

(p. x x v i i i ) .

They

comment on the strong relationship between amount of formal
schooling and participation.

"By far the most persistent

finding in our investigation was that formal educational
attainment plays a highly crucial role in determining
whether or not one enters the ranks of adult students"
21) .

(p.

They found that whereas only six percent of people

with only a grade school education participated in adult
education activities,

twenty percent of those with a high

school and 38 percent of those with a college education
participated

(p. 97).

Knox reported that there was a positive relationship
between adult education participation and level of
occupation,

income,

and education in all three studies, but

that the highest degree of association was with the level of
formal education
(1974)

(p. 233) .

Carp,

Peterson,

and Roelfs

also surveyed a random sample of the general U.S.

adult population.

They reported that in the year

immediately preceding their survey,

31% of the population

was engaged in some form of adult learning,

and another 4 6%

25
expressed a desire to do so.

Their study showed that only

5% of the adult education participants had only a grade
school education, while 21% of the participants were college
graduates.

However,

the highest percentage of the

participants were high school graduates with no college
education;

they were 38% of the participants.

Ward and his associates built upon the concept of
ethnopedagogv as developed by Burger and have suggested the
importance of "pedagogical expectations
al.,

1974; Ward,

1973).

(Ward, Herzog, et

One of the ethnopedagogical issues

Ward identified is the learners'

"acceptance and

expectations of instructional procedures"

(1973).

He

explains this by saying:
The most concrete evidence of the imposition of culture
on the learning potentialities of people is their
expectations of what constitutes a valid learning
experience.
What is accepted as a valid learning
experience in one culture may be rejected in another.
The wisdom of the elders, transmitted as legends and
proverbs, may be profoundly respected as a learning
experience or totally rejected as having no place in an
educational system.
A person may be culturally
conditioned to accept the pedantic ways of the
lecturing teacher in a formal classroom as a valid
learning experience, tending to make him suspicious of
discussion groups or instructional motion pictures
(Ward, 1973, pp. 2-3).
It is currently not in fashion with some people to use
the word

"pedagogy" and its derivatives when discussing

adult education.

Malcolm Knowles has promoted the use of

the word "androgogy"
Knowles'

for referring to helping adults learn.

argument rests upon the Greek words from which the

word "pedagogy" is based.

It is claimed that the word in the

Greek refers to the instruction of children.

However, as an

26
English word,
meaning.

"pedagogy" has not had such an exclusive

Thus,

it has been used widely in the field of

education to refer to the instructional context and issues
related to that context.

It is with the intention of using

the word "pedagogy" in its generalized meaning that Burger
used the word in "ethnopedagogy," and it is with the same
intention that it is used in this study to refer to
expectations adults have about learning

(Knowles,

1984).

The purpose of the ethnopedagogy studies of Burger and
of Ward and his associates was to discover how to turn
instructional activities to cultural expectations and
practice.

The emphasis has been primarily on adapting

instructional activities to pedagogical expectations.
(1974)

says that for effective learning,

Ward

education should

utilize instructional procedures that are recognizable to
the learners as being learning experiences.
Three specific kinds of learning experiences will be
explored in this study.

War d suggests that these three

kinds form a model for effective learning.

They are as

foll o w s .
Input learning experiences involve learners receiving
or coming into contact with some new information.
Self-Awareness learning experiences involve the learner
in reflecting upon his/her current situation.
Sharing learning experiences involve learners in
putting into their own words or acting upon some new
information,

ideas,

insights

(McCue,

1982, p.

18).

27
Perceptions of what a person believes to be a good
learning experience is partially shaped by what the person
has continuously experienced and come to know as a
teaching/learning situation.

People's pedagogical

expectations are also partially shaped by social norms and
of activities as also valid.

Thus, the student's

expectations are increased or enlarged.
Modifying the discrepancy between instructional
activities and pedagogical expectations by suggesting
activities that may enlarge pedagogical expectations is
necessarily the second step in a two-step process.

The

first step is identifying and describing the discrepancy.
It was already noted from the literature on adult education
that there is a potential discrepancy betw'een adult
learners'

cultural background and the activities of self­

directed learning.

Identifying and describing the

discrepancy would also involve knowing for whom it is most
severe and what the factors are which contribute to and
maintain the discrepancy.
better understood,

Once potential discrepancies are

hypotheses can be tested concerning

potentially beneficial instructional activities to be
employed by adult educators.

Thus, the two-step process is:

(1) identify and describe the discrepancy;

and

(2) modify

the discrepancy.
The study will be important because it will focus on
the first step of the process.

It will attempt to begin

building a basis for suggesting ways to modify discrepancies

28

between self-directed learning and adult learners'
pedagogical expectations.

It will do this by inquiring into

the relationship between certain adult learner
characteristics relating to self-directedness and
pedagogical expectations.
relationships,

Based on the findings about these

implications will be made relevant to the

further exploration of self-directed learning and
identifying those who are most capable of benefitting from
it.

Nature of the Adult Inmate Learner
Educators are well aware that the characteristics of
learners have

(or should have)

a significant role in

determining the type of delivery system used to impart
educational services.

Indeed,

Benjamin S. Bloom

his school-based learning model,

(1982),

in

incorporates "student

characteristics" as one of the major classes of variables
determining students'

learning outcomes.

Moreover, Bloom

distinguishes between two types of student characteristics
that heavily influence learning.

Cognitive entry

characteristics are the skills and level of learning
competency demonstrated by students prior to taking on a new
learning task.

Affective entry characteristics are

essentially the students'
tasks.

level of motivation to learn new

Motivation is in turn influenced by the concept the

students have of themselves as learners.
Bloom's notion of student characteristics is quite
relevant to inmate-learner groups.

Evidence suggests that

29

the cognitive learning level of many inmates at entry is
relatively low.
(40%)

As of 1983,

for example,

less than half

of all inmates in American jails and prisons had

completed high school and a full 6% had received no
schooling whatsoever or had only completed kindergarten
(U.S. Department of Justice,
(1983)

1983).

and others have emphasized,

Moreover,

as Lucas

inmates have frequently

experienced failures in earlier or prior learning
experiences and either are afraid or are disinclined to try
their hand at new learning tasks.

Thus, their affective

entry level upon reaching correctional education systems is
relatively low.

These findings have serious implications

for how educational systems and particularly postsecondary
systems must be designed and implemented in order to be
effective.
Cognitive and affective entry characteristics are not
the only important student characteristics to consider.
Inmate populations frequently display a disproportionate
number of individuals who are learning disabled in some way.
These learners require special resources and specially
designed programs to help them overcome such disabilities.
Also,

inmate populations that are predonderantly female

generally have a unique set of educational problems and
needs

(Chapman,

1980;

Ryan,

Department of Corrections,

1984; and the Wisconsin
1985).

Thus,

educators must

tailor programs to take into account female inmate-learner
needs.

30
Applicable Research Studies
Several studies have been done that provide both
methodological and conceptual precedent for this research.
These studies are reviewed in the following section:
The McKean S t u d y .

McKean's study

(1977) was done for

the purpose of discovering what adult learners expected to
be important learning experiences.

He utilized a photo

instrument similar in design to the one used in the present
study.

He studied 225 adults from various adult educational

programs in several Michigan communities and found that his
particular sample considered low and medium formality
settings more valid than high formality settings.

He also

found that the subjects considered sharing and selfawareness experiences more valid than input learning
experiences.

When correlating amount of schooling with

levels of formality,

there was an apparent trend away from

high formality settings for those who had more schooling.
In medium formality settings,

sharing experiences were

considered more valid and in high formality settings,
experience was considered more valid
The Wilson S t u d y .

Wilson

input

(pp. 56-69).

(1978)

studied what a

specific set of volunteer leaders believed were important
learning experiences for others and why.
depicting three levels of formality

(low, medium and high)

and three kinds of learning experiences
awareness and sharing)
on Oahu,

Hawaii.

A photo instrument

(input, self-

was used with 51 Girl Scout leaders

In each learning situation,

the same

31

question was asked:

"Do you think these people are learning

something important?"

Probe interviews were given after the

instrument was administered to determine why the subjects
responded the way they did.
The results showed that subjects considered low
formality settings most valid,
formality situations.

followed by medium and high

The subjects judged input learning

experiences as providing the most learning,

followed by

sharing and self-awareness.
Leaders preferred medium levels of formality with
sharing experiences.

Least preferred were low

formality/sharing experiences.

With input experiences,

leaders preferred low formality settings.

The least

preferred was high formality/input experiences.
awareness experiences,
settings.

With self-

leaders preferred low formality

Least preferred were high formality/self-

awareness settings.
experiences,

Medium levels of formality,

input/low formality,

medium formality,

sharing

self-awareness/low and

learning situations were all judged as

more valid by leaders with less schooling than by leaders
with more schooling

(pp. 62-112).

The McCue S t u d y .
learners'

McCue

(1982)

investigated adult

expectations for curriculum in a specific

continuing education program.

He examined several key

learner variables including level of formality preferred,
kinds of learning experiences preferred and what
instructional setting was preferred among 3 20 property

32

managers in ten cities.
in school,

Years of formal schooling, majors

years of experience in property management and

age were independent variables.

Three instruments,

including a photo instrument depicting two levels of
formality

(high and low) were used to probe the subjects

regarding their expectations about learning experience,
level of formality and importance of course content.
The results showed that low formality settings were
considered more conducive for learning.
sharing, with input next,

Subjects preferred

followed by self-awareness.

The

preferred instructional setting was the equipment room over
small group and classroom.

Low formal learning situations

with sharing was preferred,

as was equipment room and small

group instructional settings.

Preference for high formal

learning situations was related to classroom as an
instructional setting

(pp. 150-152).

Summary
In the review of the literature,

five major theoretical

concerns for this study and specific studies which are
germaine to this particular research were examined.
Firstly,

the general characteristics of adult learners

and the pioneer studies in the area of adult learning were
examined.

The nature of the self-directed learning

phenomena was examined next,

indicating the increased

emphasis in this area of adult learning, particularly since
the development of the SDLRS.

The relationships of the

adult learner's success to pedagogical expectations were

33
explored with the literature supporting the view that the
perceptions of what a person believes to be a good learning
experience is partially shaped by what the person has
continuously experienced and come to know as a
teaching/learning situation.

Lastly,

the nature of research

done in adult learning in correctional settings was
examined,

indicating that there are many unique learning

problems related to this unique population and that these
problems require non-traditional solutions.

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In Chapter three the methods used to investigate the
relationships between adult inmate learners'

SDLRS and their

expectations regarding level of formality, kind of learning
experience and amount of formal schooling are discussed.
The research design, questions and hypotheses are outlined
and the instrumentation and procedures used in the data
collection and analysis are identified.

Description of Methodology
Through a correlational study, an attempt was made to
discover the relationships which exist among the
expectations adult inmate learners have about valid levels
of formality,

valid kinds of learning experiences,

their

degree of self-directed learning readiness and their amount
of formal schooling.

The statistical analysis used was

measures of correlation.

Borg and Gall

(1990)

indicate that

correlational studies are used when individual differences
are expected to be present which will manifest themselves as
variations in scores.

The researcher is primarily

interested in the factors which will be related to the
variations in these scores and which may shed light on adult
inmate learners'

expectations about learning and their level

of self-directed learning readiness.

34

35
Research Design
The study was essentially a "one-shot case study"
(Isaac and Michael,

1941, p. 36)

justified on the grounds

that the study is non-experimental.

Three instruments were

administered one time to each of the 228 subjects and the
responses were analyzed.

One instrument was used to measure

the learners' perceptions about levels of formality and
kinds of learning experiences considered to be valid
learning activities.

A second instrument measured the

degree of self-directed learning readiness.

The instruments

were administered in classroom type settings during regular
class hours or activity sessions and the length of time of
administration was about 30 minutes.

Variables Under Investigation
The classifying or exploratory variables in this study
were the expectation of learning with regards to level of
formality,

expectation of learning with regards to kind of

learning experience and amount of schooling and were,
therefore,

the independent variables.

The variable

explained in light of the independent variables was the
degree of self-directed learning readiness and was,
therefore,

the dependent variable.

The assumption was that

the degree of SDLR the subjects had could be predicted by
their expectations about learning,
of formal schooling they've had.
exists,

as well as by the amount
If such a relationship

this information could be used by educators to

36
explore the development of an instrument for identifying
adult inmates capable of benefitting most from SDL.
Independent Variables
Level of formality of an instructional activity refers
to how structured,

authority-oriented,

and controlled a

learner feels the learning activity must be to have
important learning occur in his own experience.

Formality

was measured in two levels: high formal and low formal and
was obtained by using the level of formality instrument.
The instrument consisted of three pairs of photo pictures
depicting adult learners and their instructors engaged in
either a highly structured and formal learning situation or
a low structured and informal learning situation.
question is asked,

The

"In which of the following situations do

you think these people are learning the most?"

A choice is

made from each pair by the subject making an "X" in a box
below the picture.
The second independent variable is the kind of learning
experience provided by an instructional activity and refers
to the nature of experience the learner perceives as
providing important learning.

Ward

(1966)

and McKean

(1977)

described three basic kinds of learning experiences:
Input.

The learner is involved in receiving or coming

into contact with some new information.
Self-awareness.

The learner is involved in reflecting

upon his or her current situation,
interests,

feelings, knowledge,

including abilities,

and limitations.

37
Sharing.

The learner is involved in putting into

his/her own words or acting upon some new information,
ideas,

insights

(McKean,

1977, p.

34).

The instrument used to obtain this data is discussed
under the instrumentation section and is similar to that
used to obtain the level of formality data with the
exception that there are six pairs of photo pictures instead
of three

(Appendix B ) .

The third independent variable is the amount of formal
schooling.

These data are obtained by having the subjects

fill out the educational information section on the SDLRS
computer answer sheet.

Dependent Variable
The dependent variable in the study is the SDLRS
obtained by the subjects responding to the 34 questions on
the SDLRS ABE.

Research Statements and Null Hypotheses
The following research statements and null hypotheses
identify the statistics which were examined and the
relationships which were tested for among the independent
and dependent variables:
Null Hypotheses
Subjects will not choose any one level of formality
as providing more important learning than the
other.
Subjects will not choose any one kind of learning

38
experience as providing important learning than the
other kinds of learning experiences.
There will be no significant relationship between
the subjects' mean degree of SDLRS and their choice
of level of formality.
There will be no significant relationship between
the subjects' mean degree of SDLRS and their choice
of learning experience.
H,.

There will be no significant relationship between
the subjects' mean degree of SDLRS and their amount
of formal schooling.

Hg

There will be no significant relationship between
the subjects'

choice of level of formality and

their choice of kind of learning experience as
providing most important learning.
There will be no significant relationship between
the subjects' mean degree of SDLRS and their age.
Hg

There will be no significant relationship between
the subjects'

mean degree of SDLRS and their sex.

Sample
The sample for this study was a convenience sample of
228 adult inmates,

191 males and 37 females participating in

21 adult education programs in various correctional
institutions in Lower Southern Michigan.

The smallest

number of learners in a class was eight and the largest was
seventeen.

The classes included GED, adult basic education,

college extension programs,

college degree programs and

39
vocational education

(Appendix A ) .

The age range of the

subjects was 21 to 54 and they are similar to other adult
inmate learners in other institutions throughout the MDOC.
The institutions represented in the sample were the State
Prison of Southern Michigan,

the Robert G. Cotton Facility,

the Scott Regional Facility,

the Florence Crane Facility,

the Egler Facility,

Camp Waterloo, Western Wayne

Correctional and Adrian Temporary Facility

(Appendix A ) .

The population of these institutions are similar to that of
most other correctional institutions throughout Michigan and
the educational and vocational programs which were included
in the study are similar to those in most other correctional
institutions in Michigan.

Instrumentation
The study made use of three instruments,

the first two

having been designed specifically but adopted from
instruments used in other past studies
1982 and Wilson,

(McKean,

1977; McCue,

1978).

The Level of Formality instrument measured expectations
concerning the level of formality the subjects perceived to
be most valid in providing learning.

There were two levels

of formality:

(HF) and Low Formality

labelled

High Formality labelled

(LF).

The instrument consisted of three pairs of

photo pictures with one picture in each pair representing a
low formal setting and one picture representing a high
formal setting.

Each individual picture representing a low

formal setting was matched against one picture representing

40
a high formal setting

(Appendix B ) .

The pictures were

presented in a way that the formality issue was focused
primarily on the activity role of the instructor in the
picture.

For a high formal situation,

the instructor was

clearly in control of the learning situation as seen in
light of his posture and activity.
situation,

For a low formal

the instructor was still a part of the activity,

but it was obvious that the instructor control factor was
diffused in a major way.

At the top of each page on which

the pair of pictures were presented the same question
appears:

"In which of the following situations do you think

people are learning the most?"

Each picture in the pair was

labelled with a letter of the alphabet and the subject was
asked to place an "X" in the box which represented the
choice between the two pictured

(Appendix D ) .

The possible combinations of pairs are shown in the
Table 3.1 below.
In the first column,
are indicated.

the nine pairs of photo pictures

The letters AB - QR in the second column

identifies the pictures in each pair and is placed beside
the box in which the subject records his/her choice.
column three,

the kinds of learning experiences,

In

input,

self-awareness or sharing, describes the nature of the
learning situation the learners are engaged in.
to the kind of learning experience,

In addition

each photo-picture also

portrays a level of formality indicated in column four.

41
TABLE 3.1
POSSIBLE CHOICES FOR LEVEL OF
FORMALITY AND KIND OF LEARNING EXPERIENCE
PhotoPicture
Pair No.
1

ID Letter
For Response
Box
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Learning
Experience

Level of
Formality

Input
Input
Self-Awareness
Sharing
S e 1 f-Awa rene s s
Sharing
Input
Self-Awareness
Sharing
Sharing
Sharing
Input
Input
Self-Awareness
Self-Awareness
Self-Awareness
Sharing
Input

High
Low
Low
High
High
Low
Low
High
High
Low
Low
High
High
Low
Low
High
High
Low

Two scores were obtained from the instrument.
Subjects'

choices among each one of three pairs of learning

situations where setting was constant

(See Table 3.1, pair

1, 5 and 8) were used to calculate a preference for level of
formality.

To obtain a score for level of formality,

a

preference for high formality in each pair was assigned a
value of two and a choice for low formality was assigned a
value of one.

A consistent preference for a high level of

formality would be a score of five or six.

A score of three

or four indicates a preference for low formality.
Validity Test for Level of Formality I nstrument.

To

ensure the content validity of the Level of Formality
instrument,

a panel of four adult education instructors,

two

42
males and two females, were given the definition of "formal"
used for this study in Chapter one.

The researcher made

sure that each panel member clearly understood how level of
formality was being defined.
things.

First,

They were then asked to do two

each member of the panel was presented with

the six pictures used to make up the nine pairs in the
instrument.

They were asked to label the picture by itself

as to whether it represented a high formal situation or a
low formal situation.
The percentage of agreement among all four panel
members was 90%.

There was a 90% agreement between the

researcher and the panel members.

Each panel member was

then asked to independently label each one of the eighteen
pictures as to whether it was a high formal situation or a
low formal situation.

There was an 80% agreement between

how the researchers labelled each picture and how the panel
members labelled them.
Reliability Test for Level of Formality I nstrument.
The Level of Formality instrument was attempting to measure
the expectations that subjects had with regard to the level
of formality.

To ensure that the instrument elicited the

same responses over time

(stability validity)

vulnerable to changes in the subjects' mood,
environment,

and was not
situation,

or

the instrument was administered to fourteen

people in two separate groups at one time and then re­
administered to the same groups one week later.

There was a

43
test-retest reliability of

.87.

Thus, the instrument was

considered stable over time.
Kind of Learning E x p e r i e n c e .

The Kind of Learning

Experience component of the instrument utilized the pairs
numbered 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 shown in Table 3.1 on Page 37.
Each one of these pairs matched one setting against another
setting so the subject was forced to make a choice between
settings.

Accompanying each photo is a caption with the

teacher's instruction.

The question asked was,

"In which of

the following situations do you think people are learning
the most?"

To obtain a score for preference for kind of

learning experience,

each time a particular setting was

chosen a score of one was recorded.

Out of the six pairs, a

type of learning could be chosen a maximum of four times for
a total score of four.
Validity Test for Kind of Learning Inst r u m e n t .

To

ensure the content validity of the Kind of Learning
instrument,

a panel of four people was given the definition

of kind of learning experience used for this research in
Chapter one.

The researcher made sure that each person

clearly understood how kind of learning experience was being
defined.
Each member of the panel was presented with the six
pictures used to make up the nine pairs of the instrument.
They were asked to label each picture as to what kind of
learning experience they felt it represented.

The

percentage of agreement among all four panel members was

44
100%.

There was a 100% agreement between the researcher and

the panel members.
Reliability Test for Kind of Learning Instrument.

The

Kind of Learning Experience instrument is attempting to
measure the expectations that subjects have with regard to
the preference for kind of learning experience.

To ensure

that the instrument elicited the same responses over time
(stability validity)
the subjects' mood,

and was not vulnerable to changes in
situation,

or environment,

the

instrument was administered to fourteen people in two groups
at one time and then re-administered to the same groups one
week later.
Thus,

There was a test-retest reliability of .84.

the instrument was considerable stable over time.
Self-Directed Learning Rea d i n e s s .

The SDLRS instrument

is a 34-item Likert scale designed to determine the extent
to which individuals perceive themselves possessing factors
associated with self-directedness.
Guglielmino in 1977,

It was developed by

field-tested and revised in 1981.

has been translated into French, Spanish, Japanese,

It

Chinese,

Finnish and Italian and used in over 180 research efforts,
including more than 5 0 masters theses and doctoral
dissertations

(Crook,

1985, p. 264).

The instrument is

cited in numerous articles and books relating to adult
education and is generally recognized as the most valid and
widely-used instrument of its kind.

The 58 items are

written in such a way as to ask for a response about
learning preferences and attitudes.

Each item is answered

45
on a five-point scale: almost never true of me; not often
true of me;

sometimes

always true of me

true of me; usually true of me; almost

(Appendix B ) .

Reliability Check for SDLR Instr u m e n t .
(1981)

Guglielmino

reported a reliabillity coefficient of

scale subsequent to its 1981 revision.

Crook

.87 for the
(1985) did a

validation study on the scale and reliability check also
produced a correspondingly high reliability.

A complete

list of references including reliability studies can be
found in G u g l i e l m i n o 's

(198 9)

"Development of an Adult Basic

Education Form of the Self-Directed Learning Readiness
S c a l e ."
Validity Check for SDLR I n s t r u m e n t .

Hassan

reported validation support for the instrument.

(1981)
In his

study of 77 randomly selected adults who were asked to
complete the SDLRS,

significant relationships were found

between self-directed readiness,

as measured by the SDLRS

and the following:
1.

The number of learning projects conducted in the

previous 12 months.
2.

The type of learning projects conducted.

3.

The demographic variables of age, sex, and level of

formal education

(Brockett,

1983, p. 173).

It was found

that the SLDLRS can discriminate between high and low
involvement of learning activities,

thus indicating high

predictive validity for the scale. As indicated in Chapter
2, the SDLRS has demonstrated high correlations in other

46
studies with factors such as creativity, originality,

and

self-concept.
Demographic information including the Amount of Formal
Schooling variable,

as well as age and sex, were obtained by

having the subjects enter the information in the appropriate
sections on the SDLRS computer answer sheets.

Amount of

Formal Schooling categories were:
0-08

years

9-11

years

12 years
13 - 14 years
15 - 16 years

Research Procedure and Data Collection
The research data were gathered by using a
questionnaire and instruments which took approximately 30
minutues to administer.

The data were gathered from adult

inmate subjects in various educational and vocational
settings between April and June of 1992.

Approval was

sought and obtained from the Human Subjects Committee at
Michigan State University prior to the beginning of data
collection

(Appendix E ) .

Prior to Data C o l l e c t i o n .

A pilot study of the

instrumentation was run with 17 subjects in April of 1992.
The instruments were administered then interviews were held
with the subjects to determine its clarity and to uncover
any flaws which may have been present.

There were no major

problems discovered with the instruments.

Minor changes

47
were made in the wording of the accompanying script for the
Kind of Learning Experience instrument to clear up small
ambiguities pointed out by the pilot group.
The pilot test allowed the researcher to also test the
directions for administering the instruments and the overall
questionnaire administration procedures.

This pilot test

provided a necessary step in making the data-gathering phase
as efficient and accurate as possible.
During the time the instrument was being perfected,
schedule of data gathering sites was arranged.

a

The final

schedule included eight institutions and 21 groups or
settings.

Arrangements were made at each site to allow 30

minutes to give the directions and collect the data.
each data gathering site,

At

the instructions and questionnaire

administration was carried out personally by the researcher.
In some cases,

it was done prior to the beginning of the

regular class period,

while in other cases it was done after

the regular class or during an extended break.
During Data C o l l e c t i o n .

Data gathering booklets

containing all three instruments described above were
prepared.

The detailed step-by-step procedure for gathering

the data was as follows:
1.

Sealed data gathering booklet

distributed.

2.

Introduction and statement of

purpose of research

(Appendix F ) .
3.

Subjects were asked to open sealed questionnaire
and follow as directions were given verbally for

48
the overall data gathering process.
4.

Gave directions and administered the SDLRS
questi o n n a i r e .

5.

Gave directions and administered the Expectation of
Level of Formality instrument.

6.

Gave directions and administered the Expectation of
Kind of Learning Experience instrument.

7.

The data gathering instruments were collected,
placed in an envelope,

labelled with the name of

the institution and the group code and sealed to
prevent against loss or confusion.

Great care was

taken to make sure that the coded SDLRS answer
sheets and the corresponding Expectation of
Learning instruments were kept together.
After Data C o l l e c t i o n .

To assure complete anonymity,

the data questionnaires were not coded with identification
numbers until after completion.

Each questionnaire was

numbered on the front cover and the last page.

Each

questionnaire was checked to make sure it was complete with
the requested demographic information.
unusable questionnaires.

There was no

Information from the Expectation

of Learning instruments v/ere transferred to the SDLRS
computer answer sheets in the section marked
Codes."

"Special

Demographic information with amount of schooling,

age and sex were entered in the appropriate sections on the
answer sheets.

All the answer sheets were then sent for

49
processing and analysis.

This was done at the Florida

Atlantic University Academic Computing Center.

Data Analysis
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences was
used to analyze the data.

The data were measured using

multiple regression measurements and analysis of variance.
The level of significance was accepted at the

.05 level.

The dependent and independent variables are listed
below showing the combinations of correlations done to test
for main effects and relationships among variables.
The first level of analysis was to determine if there
were any differences among the subjects with regard to the
five expectation variables listed below.

Appropriate

statistical analyses were performed depending on the type of
each variable.

The list below indicates the five

expectation variables tested for main effects.

Tests for Main Effects
1.

Level of Formality

2.

Kind of Learning Experience

Tests for Correlations and Associations
1.

SDLRS x Level of Formality

2.

SDLRS x Kind of Learning Experience

3.

SDLRS x Amount of Schooling

4.

Level of Formality x Kind of Learning Experience

5.

SDLRS x Age

6.

SDLRS x Sex

50

Methodological Assumptions
There are several assumptions which underlie the
study's design and procedures.
assumed that the subjects'

Firstly,

the researcher

responses to the question in the

Expectation of Learning instrument,

"In which of these

situations do you think people are learning the most?", do
indicate the degree of learning which the subjects
considered occurring in each learning situation portrayed.
It is assumed that the two levels of formality and the three
kinds of learning experiences can be represented through
pictures and statements.
In addition,

the researcher assumed that preferences

the adult learners have for kinds of learning experiences
can be measured by asking them to make a forced choice
between two possible kinds of learning experiences
represented by the descriptive statements and pictures.
Second,

the researcher assumed that pictures of

learning settings can represent different levels of
formality and that levels can be distinguished when a
subject is asked to make a choice between levels represented
by two pictures.
question,

Further,

it is assumed that by asking the

"In which situation do you think people are

learning the

most?",

the subject's attention is focused

primarily on the issues in the picture that are relevant for
meaningful learning to be taking place.

51
The Self-Directed Learning Readiness scale is assumed
to be a valid and reliable indicator of the subjects'
ability to become involved in self-directed learning.

Limitations
This was an exploratory study which attempted to
identify relationships between SDLR and adult inmates'
expectations about learning and years of formal schooling.
Conclusions from studying the relationships between the
variables described above must be very tentative.

Direct

cause and effect relationships cannot be established even
though meaningful relationships may be described,

giving

insights regarding Self-Directed Learning Readiness
characteristics among adult inmate learners.
The subjects in the study belong to a discrete
population of adult learners.

Also the sample taken from

that population was a convenience sample with no possibility
for randomization.

These two conditions tightly limit the

generalizability of the study.
The study used new instruments to gather data.
instruments are developmental in nature.
instrumentation,

The

With such new

the study is limited to what adult learners

indicated as preferences regarding level of formality and
kind of learning experience.

Care must be taken in drawing

conclusions from this preference-type research.

Asking

learners for preferences does not necessarily mean that
their preference is what ought to be done to structure a
productive learning experience.

Merely giving learners

52
their choice does not ensure that the choice is going to
promote self-directedness.

Further,

the reader cannot

assume that, because the subjects of the study say that
certain kinds of learning experiences and level of formality
provide more important learning,

in practice they use these

levels or kinds of learning experiences.
what one believes,

The links between

says and does are very complex and at

times seemingly contradictory.

A vast number of studies

need to be conducted in order to provide more clarity
concerning the differences,

correlations and cause-effect

relationships among believing,

saying and behaving in order

to provide educators with the tools to identify selfdirectedness in adult inmates.

Summary
Chapter three described the methods used to investigate
the relationships among SDLRS

(dependent variable)

expectations concerning level of formality,
experience and amount of formal schooling
variables)

and

kind of learning

(independent

of 2 28 adult inmate learners in various

correctional institutions in Michigan.
The research design,

research questions and hypotheses,

instrumentation and procedures for data collection and
analysis were identified.

CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
This chapter contains the information gathered through
this research along with related statistical analysis.

Each

of the two research statements and six research hypotheses
is restated and accompanied by the findings.

Overview
The focus of this study examined a specific group of
adult learners regarding relationships which may exist among
their Degree of Self Directed Learning Readiness Score
(SDLRS), the independent variable,
level of formality,

and kind of learning experience as

providing important learning,
schooling,

their expectations about

and their amount of formal

their age and sex, all independent variables.

The purpose of this study is to provide basic and
relevant information which adult educators may use to
continue further research in identifying inmate learners
most capable of benefitting from Self Directed Learning
(SDL).

Sample Profile
The total sample consisted of 228 adult inmates,
eighty-four percent male
(37).

(191)

and sixteen percent female

There were subjects from ages twenty-one

age of fifty-four

(1).

(2) to the

Sixty-three percent of the subjects

were under the age of thirty-five and thirty-seven percent
over 35.

When the sample is divided into five-year

53

54
increments,

between age twenty-one and fifty-five,

the

category with the most subjects is the group between the
ages of thirty-one and thirty-five, with fifty-nine
subjects.

Four subjects did not identify their ages.

reported mean age is 33.08,
is 26.0.

The

the median is 32.0 and the mode

Table 4.1 illustrates the range of ages for the

entire sample.

There are seven five-year increments with

the age range of 21 through 55.

TABLE 4.1
AGE OF SUBJECTS WITH A FREQUENCY
DISTRIBUTION IN FIVE YEAR INCREMENTS
FIVE-YEAR
INCREMENTS
21
26
31
36
41
46
51

-

25
30
35
40
45
50
55

NUMBER OF SUBJECTS
IN EACH CATEGORY

years
years
years
years
years
years
years

41
45
59
31
30
12

06

The only demographic information required of the sample
were age, gender and grade, which will be discussed later in
this chapter, being the basis of information for one of the
independent variables.
Table 4.2 presents the statistical data for the SDLRS
for the entire sample.

In Table 4.2 value indicates a score

which is a measure of the subjects'

current level of SRLR.

Frequency identifies the number of subjects having that
particular score, while the percent column gives the
percentage of the frequency totaling 100%.

55

TABLE 4.2
SDLRS
SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING READINESS SCALE SCORES

Subjects'
Converted
SDLRS
119.00
123.00
124.00
125.00
126.00
127.00
128.00
129.00
130.00
131.00
132.00
133.00
134.00
135.00
136.00
137.00
138.00
139.00
140.00
141.00
142.00
143.00
144.00
145.00
146.00
147.00
148.00
149.00
150.00
151.00
152.00
153.00
154.00
155.00
156.00
157.00
158.00
159.00
160.00
166.00
TOTAL

Frequency
1
2
1
1
1
4
5
4
5
3
6
14
10
14
13
2
8
9
7
4
8
7
6
5
7
9
11
6
11
5
9
8
2
5
4
5
2
2
1
1
228

Percent
.4
.9
.4
.4
.4
1.8
2.2
1.8
2.2
1.3
2.6
6.1
4.4
6.1
5.7
.9
3.5
3.9
3.1
1.8
3.5
3.1
2.6
2.2
3.1
3.9
4.8
2.6
4.8
2.2
3.9
3.5
.9
2.2
1.8
2.2
.9
.9
.4
.4
100.0

Cum.
Per
.4
1.3
1.8
2.2
2.6
4.4
6. 6
8.3
10.5
11.8
14.5
20.6
25.0
31.1
36.8
37.7
41.2
45.2
48.2
50.0
53.5
56.6
59.2
61.4
64.5
68.4
73.2
75.9
80.7
82.9
86.8
90.4
91.2
93.4
95.2
97.4
98.2
99.1
99.6
100.0

56

Data Analysis Methods
The data analysis used a combination of descriptive
statistics, multiple regression and one-way analysis of
variance.

A multiple regression equation used all variables

which individually predict the criterion to make a
prediction which is more accurate

(Gay, p. 152).

The one­

way analysis is used when there is a single dependent
variable and it determines whether or not there is a
significant difference in means between variables.
The particular nature of the data analysis of the study
presented inherent problems associated with multiple
comparisons of tests among group means identified by
Fletcher,

Dan, and Young

(1989).

The authors cited the

problem as "the increasing rate of false rejection errors"
to multiple F tests of effects in multifactor ANOVAS and
regression analyses.

If the null hypothesis is true for

each of n tests among a set of means,

the authors indicated

that the probability that at least one false rejection will
occur p(e > 1) increases rapidly beyond the nominal alpha
error rate as a function of n according to the Formula P
> 1)

=

1-(1-

)n

(p.

102) .

These error rates,
serious implications

according to the authors, have

for researchers.

This problem has been

addressed primarily in the literature on multiple
regressions.

(e

Cohen and Cohen

(1975)

and Pedhazur

(1982)

both stress the importance of having a reasonably large

multiple R

2

(the proportion of dependent score variance

accounted for by all independent variables simultaneously)
for various regression models.

The most commonly used

treatment for correcting the problem is the Fisher's
protection procedure, which recommends that the overall R

2

be significant before one declares any separately tested
constituent independent variable to be significant
(Fletcher, p. 103).

For this study, the Bonferroni

protection method would be more applicable.

This method

requires the alpha errors be controlled by simply
distributing the alpha over the number of tests to be made.
However,

the practicality and usefulness of the procedure

increases with the number of tests involved and is generally
used when ten or more f tests are computed.

Since the

present study involved the analysis of only six tests, the
procedure was not employed.

A replication of the study,

however,

could involve the use of additional tests,

for

example,

the race of the adult inmate learner, kind of

crime, or combinations of levels of formality and learning
experience,

as well as other variables unique to the prison

environment.

It would then be necessary to use the

protection procedure if the number of tests exceeded ten.

Data Analysis
The analysis section of Chapter Four is organized
around the study's research questions,
and research hypotheses.

research statements

58
Analysis of Descriptive Statistics
Subjects'

expectations about their choice of Level of

Formality and Kinds of Learning Experiences were identified
through descriptive statistics.
Research Question 1;
Do adult inmate learners
perceive any one Level of Formality as providing
more important learning than the other Level of
Formality?
Null Hypothesis 1 ; Subjects will not choose
one Level of Formality as providing more
important learning than the other Level of
Formality.
Table 4.3 presents the frequency distribution of the
scores for the level of formality.
scores for level of formality:

There are four possible

low, moderately low,

moderately high and high.
Subjects were asked to indicate in which of the two
pictures learners were learning the most.

The setting was

held constant and judgements were made in three different
settings.

A score of one was assigned for low formality and

a score of two for high formality.

If the subject was

consistent in choosing low formality,

a score of three

results and if a subject was consistent in choosing high
formality,

a score of six results.

Table 4.3 indicates that 60.1% of the subjects thought
that more effective learning was associated with low or
moderately low formality, while 39.5% thought that more
effective learning was associated with high formality or
moderately high formality.
formality is 4.242.

The overall mean level of

59

TABLE 4.3
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR LEVEL OF FORMALITY

Raw
Score
3
4
5
6
0

Level of
Formality
Low Formality
Moderately Low
Formality
Moderately High
Formality
High Formality
TOTAL

Frequency

Valid
Percent

Percent

91

40.1

39.9

46

20. 3

20.2

34
56
1
228

15.0
24.7
missing
100.0

14.9
24.6
.4
100.0

Total of Low Formality

60.1

Total % of High Formality

39.5

Overall Mean Level of Formality

4.242

Therefore, based on the frequency distribution data,
the research statement is not confirmed

The learners did

choose the low level of formality as providing more
important learning as opposed to the high level of
f o rmality.

Research Question 2 ; Do adult learners perceive
any one Kind of Learning experience as providing
more important learning than any other Kind of
Learning experience?
Null Hypothesis 2:
Subjects will not choose
any one Kind of Learning experience as more
important in providing learning than any other
Kind of Learning experience.
Table 4.4 presents the frequency distributions for the
preference for kinds and combinations of learning
experiences.

60

TABLE 4.4
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR PREFERENCE
FOR KIND OF LEARNING EXPERIENCE

Combinations or
Category of
Subjects' Choices
Input
Self-Awareness
Sharing
Input and Self-Awareness
(Equally)
Input and Sharing
(Equally)
Sharing and Self-Awareness
(Equally)
All Three Equally

Total Number of
Responses for
Each Choice

Percent

46
17
48

20.1
7.4
21.0

36

15.7

43

18.8

23
15

10.0
6.5

n = 228

In the kind of learning experience instrument,

a total

of nine pairs of statements representing the three kinds of
learning experiences were presented.

The frequency Table

4.4 lay out the total number of times each kind of learning
experience was chosen by itself or in some combination with
another kind of learning experience.

This is a calculated

variable from the raw score choices for the purpose of data
analysis.

Preferences for kind of learning experience is

calculated by taking each individual choice made by each
subject and adding all scores for the individual choices
within the various combinations to get the totals.
The total scores were isolated for each kind of
learning experience by asking the question,

"Did a subject

have a higher score on input versus the other two, or

61
sharing versus the other two, or self-awareness versus the
other two?"

If they did have a higher score on one kind

than any other kind,

they then were counted as having a

preference for that kind of learning experience.

If the

subjects had higher and equal scores on a combination of two
kinds when compared with a third, they were put into the
category with a combination of kinds of learning experience.
If the scores were equal on all three kinds of learning
experience,

another category was created labeled,

"All three

scores equal."
Table 4.4 indicates that 46 or 20.2% of the subjects
always preferred input kind of learning experiences, with
only 17 or 7.5% of the subjects always showing a preference
for self-awareness kind of learning experiences.

A total of

48 or 21.1% of the subjects always preferred sharing type
learning experiences.
In combination,

36 subjects or 15.8% of the subjects

preferred both input and self-awareness,
18.9% preferred both input and sharing,

43 subjects or
23 subjects or 10.0%

preferred both sharing and self-awareness, with 15 subjects
or 6.5% preferring all three kinds of learning experiences
equally.
Therefore, when ranked according to strength of
preference for kind of learning experience, there is a clear
preference for combinations of different kinds of learning
experiences,

followed by sharing experience,

experience.

However,

then input

the results indicate that there is an

62
extremely small difference among preference for input,
sharing and equal combination of input and sharing
experiences.

Only 17% of the subjects indicated a

preference for self-awareness experience.

The overall mean

for kind of learning experience is 3.608.

Further

statistical analysis would be necessary to clarify the
relationship between sharing,
Therefore,

input and self-awareness.

based on the frequency distribution data,

the research statement was confirmed.

The subjects in this

sample did not show a significant preference for one kind of
learning experience,

but chose a somcinbation of inut and

sharing.
Research Hypotheses
The following six null hypotheses were used to guide
the study based on the research questions.
1.

SDLRS x Level of Formality
Research Question 3 : Is there a significant
relationship between the subjects' mean SDLRS
and their choice of Level of Formality?
Null Hypothesis 3 : There will be no significant
relationship between the subjects' mean SDLRS
and their choice of Level of Formality as providing
as providing most important learning.

A one-way analysis of variance was used to test for
relationships between SDLRS and level of formality. A
significant relationship was found between the two variables
(F = 3.815, P = .052 and R - Square = .017).
the null hypothesis was not rejected,
level.

Consequently,

significant at the

The results indicate that for this sample,

.05

SDLRS

cannot be accurately predicted by their choice of level of

63

formality as providing most important learning. The results
of Hypothesis one is presented in Table 4.5.

TABLE 4.5
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN MEAN SDLRS AND LEVEL OF FORMALITY

Source

DF

Regression
Residual

1
225

Sum of Squares

Significant at

2.

311.313
18360.202

Mean Square

F-Ratio

311.313
81.601

3.815

P
0.052

.05 level

SDLRS x Kind of Learning Experience
Research Question 4 : Is there a significant
relationship between the subjects' mean SDLRS
and their choice of Kind of Learning Experience?
Null Hypothesis 4:
There will be no significant
relationship between the subjects' mean SDLRS and
their choice of Kind of Learning Experience.

A one-way analysis of variance was used to test for a
relationship between SDLRS and kind of learning experience.
No significant relationship was found between the two
variables

(F = .915, P =

Consequently,

the null hypothesis was not rejected,

significant at the
this sample,

.485, and R -- Square = .024).

.05 level.

The results indicate that for

SDLRs cannot be accurately predicted by their

choice of kind of learning experience as providing most
important learning. The results of Hypothesis two is
presented in Table 4.6.

64

TABLE 4.6
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN MEAN SDLRS AND KIND OF LEARNING EXPERIENCE

Source

DF

Learn.
Exper.
Error

6
220

Sum of Squares

454.583
18216.933

Mean Square

F-Ratio

75.764
82.804

0.915

P

0.485

Significant at .05 level

3.

SDLRS x Amount of Formal Schooling
Research Question 5 : Is there a significant
relationship between the subjects' mean SDLRS and
their amount of Formal Schooling?
Null Hypothesis 5;
There will be no significant
relationship between the subjects' mean SDLRS and
their amount of Formal Schooling.

A one-way analysis of variance was used to test for a
relationship between mean SDLRS and the subjects'
formal schooling.

A statistically significant relationship

was found between the two variables at the
significance
Consequently,

amount of

.05 level of

(F = 6.170, P = .014 and R - square = .027).
the null hypothesis is rejected.

The results

indicate that for this sample, mean SDLRS can be predicted
by the amount of formal schooling they have had.
Specifically,
schooling,

the higher the number of years of formal

the higher the mean SDLRS when compared to the

national adult norms.
presented in Table 4.7.

The results of Hypothesis three is

65

TABLE 4.7
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN MEAN SDLRS AND AMOUNT OF FORMAL SCHOOLING
Source

DF

Sum of Squares

Regression
Residual

1
226

496.228
18176.913

Significant at the

4.

Mean Square
496.228
80.429

F-Ratio

P

6.170

.014

.05 level

Level of Formality x Kind of Learning Experience
Research Question 6 : Is there a significant
relationship between the subjects' choice of Level
of Formality and their choice of Kind of Learning
Experience?
Null Hypothesis 6:
There will be no significant
relationship between the subjects' choice of Level
of Formality and their choice of Kind of Learning
Experience.
A one-way analysis of variance was used to test

for a relationship between level of formality and kind of
learning experience with regards to the subjects'
preferences as to which provide the most important learning.
The relationship between the two variables was found to be
statistically significant at the
.000 and R - Square = .187).
hypothesis is rejected.
extremely weak,

Consequently,

(F = 8.456, P =
the null

The strength of the relationship is

the results suggesting that the subjects'

choice of level of formality,
relationship,

.05 level

the dependent variable in this

can be predicted by their choice of kind of

learning experience but without any statistically

66
significant degree of accuracy. The results of Hypothesis
four is presented in Table 4.8.

TABLE 4.8
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN LEVEL OF FORMALITY AND KIND OF LEARNING EXPERIENCE

Source

DF

Learn.
Exper.
Error

6
220

Sum of Squares

62.908
272.766

Significant at the

5.

Mean Squares

10.485
1.240

F-Ratio

8.456

P

.000

.05 level.

SDLRS x Age
Research Question 7 : Is there a significant
relationship between the subjects' mean SDLRS and
their age?
Null Hypothesis 7 : There will be no significant
relationship between the subjects' mean SDLRS and
their age.

A one-way analysis of variance was used to test for a
relationship between SDLRs and the age of the subjects.

A

statistically significant relationship was found between the
two variables at the
square = .026).

.05 level

(F - 5.98 9, P = .015 and R

The null hypothesis is rejected.

The

results suggest that for this sample, the subjects' degree
of SDLR can be predicted by their age.
will be necessary,

however,

Additional studies

to authenticate or to clarify

this since previous studies discussed in Chapter Two found
no significant relationship between SDLRS and age.

The

results of Null hypothesis five is presented in Table 4.9.

67

TABLE 4.9
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE IN THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN SDLRS AND AGE
Source

DF

Sum of Squares

Regression
Residual

1
222

479.945
17790.912

Significant at the

6.

Mean Square
479.945
80.139

F-Ratio
5.989

P
.015

.05 level

SDLRS x Sex
Research Question 8 : Is there a significant
relationship between the subjects' mean SDLRS and
their sex?
Null Hypothesis 8 : There will be no significant
relationship between the subjects' mean SDLRS and
their sex.

A one-way analysis of variance was used to test for a
relationship between SDLRS and sex.
between SDLRS,

The relationship

the dependent variable,

and sex, an

independent variable, was found to be statistically
significant at the
Square = .037).

.05 level

(F = 8.649, P = .004 and R

The null hypothesis is rejected. The result

of this analysis also does not concur with previous studies
in the literature which indicated no significant
relationship between SDLRs and sex.

The results of Null

Hypothesis Six is presented in Table 4.10.

68
TABLE 4.10
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN SDLRS AND SEX
Source

DF

Regression
Residual

1
226

Sum of Squares

Significant at the

688.289
17984.852

Mean Square

F-Ratio

688.289
79.579

8.649

P
.004

.005 level.

Summary
Data from this study provides information concerning
Self-Directed Learning Readiness
with adult inmate learners'

(SDLR)

and its relationship

amount of formal schooling,

and

their expectations about level of formality and kind of
learning experience as providing most important learning,
their age and their sex.

Descriptive statistics and a

combination of multiple regression and one-way analysis of
variance were used to generate the findings.

CHAPTER FIVE
OVERVIEW, SUMMARY, CONCLUSION,
IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Overview
The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the study,
provide conclusions,

offer implications,

recommendations for further research.

and suggest

The first section of

this study presents the summary of the purpose and procedure
of the study,

the second section summarizes the findings and

provides conclusions,
implications,

the third section suggests

and the final section provides recommendations

for further research.

Summary of Purpose and Procedure
The purpose of this study was to inquire into the
relationship which exists between adult inmate learners'
Self-Directed Learning Readiness and their amount of formal
schooling and expectations about learning with regards to
level of formality and kind of learning experience.

This

information will hopefully contribute to the body of
knowledge on Self-Directed Learning among adult inmates in
Michigan.
Specifically,

the study examined eight major areas:

(1)

what levels of formality adult learners perceived valid;

(2)

what kinds of learning experiences were perceived valid;

(3)

what relationship exists between mean SDLRS and subjects'
choice of level of formality;

69

(4) what relationship exists

70
between mean SDLRS and the subjects'
learning experience;

choice of kind of

(5) what relationship exists between

mean SDLRS and subjects' amount of formal schooling;
what relationship exists between the subjects'

and

(6)

choice of

level of formality and their choice of kind of learning
experience;

(7) what relationship exists between the

subjects' mean SDLRS and their age;

(8) what relationship

exists between the subjects' mean SDLRS and their sex.

For

each of the eight areas a research question was formulated
followed by two research statements for the first two
questions and six null hypotheses for the next six
questions.
Chapter five presents a summary of the findings and the
conclusions resulting from this investigation.

The

conclusions are specified and implications for further
research are discussed.
Data were collected from a sample of 228 male and
female adult inmate learners in a "one-shot case study"
(Isaac and Michael,
the subjects'

1971, p. 36).

The instruments measured

degree of Self-Directed Learning Readiness,

their choice of level of formality as providing important
learning and their choice of kind of learning experience as
providing important learning.
fifth and sixth variables,

Information for the fourth,

amount of formal schooling,

and sex were entered directly on the data sheet.

age

Multiple

regression and one-way analysis of variance was performed to
determine relationships for the six null hypotheses,

while

71

descriptive statistics were used to determine the results of
the two research statements.

Summary of Findings with Conclusions
Research Question 1
Do adult inmate learners perceive any one level of
formality as providing more important learning than the
other level?
It was found that the low level of formality was chosen
by a total of 60.1% of the subjects,

as opposed to a 39.9%

choice for high formality.
It was concluded that the subjects in the sample
differed significantly in the level of formality setting
they judged as providing more important learning.

Research Question 2
Do adult inmate learners perceive any one kind of
learning experience as providing more important
learning than other kinds of learning experience?
It was found that 7.4% of the subjects chose selfawareness as their preferred kind of learning experience,
while 20.1% chose input and 21.0% chose sharing.

The

difference between the percentage who chose input and those
who chose sharing is

.09% and obviously quite small.

single kind of learning experience,
as an overwhelming choice,

therefore, was regarded

although on the contrary,

awareness was seen as very unfavorable.
results of the responses,

No

self

In analyzing the

it was found that there was an

important distinction in the percentage when combinations
are looked at.

Thus,

18.8% of the subjects'

choice would be

72
for input and sharing,

as opposed to 15.7% for input and

self-awareness.
It was concluded that the subjects in the study did not
indicate a clear preference
experience.

However,

for any one kind of learning

there was a high level of disregard

for self-awareness experience.

A choice for combinations of

kinds of experiences would be highly favored.
These conclusions, with regards to level of formality
and kind of learning experience
learning is

as providing most important

consistent with the theoretical framework

guiding this research.

Both the Wilson study and the McCue

study indicated a clear preference for low formality.

There

was a clear preference for low and medium levels in the
McKean study, with combinations of low formality with
sharing experience in the McCue and McKean studies.
Wilson study gave a clear indication, however,
experience with low level of formality.

The

for input

The results of

these findings underscore the fact that adult inmates,
although considered to be a unique population, do develop
pedagogical expectations largely as a part of a cultural
experience.

As such,

it was suggested in Chapter One that

an effective teaching/learning model is one in which all
three kinds of learning experiences are utilized with an
understanding of the nature of learning facilitated by each.
The choice of low formality over high formality was not
surprising,

recognizing the high level of an authority-

oriented setting the subjects wake up to each day.

The

73
researcher anticipated the possibility of finding the
opposite choice due to the fact that the study was done
weeks after classes had begun and subjects may have gotten
accustomed to that particular class structure.

Research Question 3
Is there a significant relationship between the
subjects' mean degree of SDLRS and their choice of
level of formality?
The study found no significant relationship between the
subjects' mean SDLRS and their choice of level of formality
as providing the most important learning at the

.05 level of

significance.
The failure to find a significant relationship between
mean SDLRS and level of formality is incongruent with
theoretical concepts found in the literature about adult
learning

(Fromin,

1941 and Russell,

1988), that elements

such as control are shaped in childhood and once formed are
difficult to change.

Thus,

high levels of control,
adulthood.

if a child developed a need for

the need would continue into

The reverse would be true as well.

educational or learning setting,

In an

this would translate into

individuals requiring low formality or low structured
settings would meet the low control needs.
logical,

then,

It would seem

that with the study sample choosing low

formality as providing the most important learning,

there

would be a significant positive relationship with their
below mean degree of SDLRS.

74
Research Question 4
Is there a significant relationship between the
subjects' mean SDLRS and their choice of kind of
learning experience?
No significant relationship was found between the
subjects' mean degree of SDLRS and their choice of kind of
learning experience as providing most important learning.
Although few studies have been found in the literature
relating to learning experience and other aspects of adult
learning,

none has been found linking kinds of learning

experience with SDLR,

and consequently there is no basis for

comparing the present finding with that of previous studies
using similar variables.
Dorsey and Pierson

(1984)

Research on learning styles by
concluded that from the age of 18

to 33 the ability to be abstract increases and while this
ability decreases from age 34 to 49, it increases again from
age 60 to 65.

The authors found that from age 18 to 49, the

participants preferred an active role in learning and after
that desired a more reflective role.
Cross

(1981)

Knowles

(1980)

and

also supported the view of this sharing type of

learning situation as being positively related to SDL among
adult learners.

Failure to establish any significant

relationship between mean SDLRS and the subjects'
learning experience in this study, therefore,

choice of

appears to be

somewhat incongruent with present-day theoretical concepts
found so far in the literature.

Further research of a more

experimental nature will most definitely be needed with this
population.

75

Research Question 5
Is there a significant relationship between the
subjects' mean degree of SDLRS and their amount of
formal schooling?
A statistically significant relationship was found at
the

.05 level between mean SDLRS and the subjects'

formal schooling at the

amount of

.05 level of significance.

This result confirms the findings of previous research
with regards to SDL and years of education.
and Young

(1986)

Roberts

(1986)

found a positive relationship between SDLRS

and other variables including educational level.

The higher

the educational level, according to these studies, the
greater the degree of self-directed learning readiness.
study by Bivens,

Campbell and Lerry

One

(1963), however,

attributed a loss of student self-direction in learning to
school attendance.
grade,

"By the time the students reach ninth

they have developed a strong habit of linear study

methods that conflicts with self-direction in learning."
The linear study methods the authors contend result from the
students' dependence on an authority figure to tell them
what is worth learning and their anxiousness to prepare for
teacher-made tests which measure their
learning,

"success" in

as opposed to an exploration of areas of knowledge

based on their own interests for their intrinsic rewards.
No subsequent research has been found relating to this
particular aspect of self-directedness and with regards to
adult inmate learners in the present study, this researcher
sees this observation as particularly relevant.

76

Research Question 6
Is there a significant relationship between the
subjects' choice of level of formality and their choice
of kind of learning experience?
Statistically,

there was a significant relationship

found between the subjects' mea n choice of level of
formality and their choice of kind of learning experience at
the

.05 level.
There is no precedent study found in the literature

exploring relationships between the means of these two
variables as in the present study.

The McKean and the

Wilson studies discussed in Chapter two looked at
combinations of individual levels of formality with
individual kinds of learning experiences and the results
show a consistent pattern of preferences.

McKean found that

correlations of med i u m formality with sharing experiences
were considered most valid and in high formality settings,
input was considered least valid

(pp. 51-69).

Although

there was a significant difference in the age of the
population studies, Wilson also found medium levels of
formality preferred with sharing experiences, while the
least preferred relationship was high formality with input
experiences

(pp. 62-112).

Limitations inherent in the methodology of this study
may have contributed to the absence of any significant
relationship between the two variables.

A duplication of

the McKean or the Wilson study with an adult inmate sample
population may be a necessary next step in accurately

77

determining whether or not adult inmate learners have the
same kinds of expectations about learning as do the no n ­
incarcerated population studied by McKean and Wilson.

Research Question 7
Is there a significant relationship between the
subjects' mean degree of SDLRS and their age?
The study found a significant relationship at the

.05

level of significance between the subjects' mean SDLRS and
their age.
Evidence of a significant relationship between SDLRS
and age raises questions due to the fact that three previous
studies

(Roberts,

1986; Young,

1986; and Bejot,

1981)

found

no significant relationship between SDLRs and age and sex,
respectively,

in their studies of management variables and

nursing education.
could be,

One question regarding this issue of sex

"To what extent are there cultural differences

between males and females with respect to self-directed or
other types of learning?"

Sex roles are changing in the

general population and there is little clarity about the
causes of adherence to or deviation from group standards for
males and females.

No study has been found relating to

self-directedness and sex or age in correctional settings.

Research Question 8
Is there a significant relationship between the
subjects' mean degree of SDLRS and their age?

78
It was found that a statistically significant
relationship exists between the subjects' mean SDLRS and
their sex,

significant at the

.05 level.

As indicated in the’ conclusion relating to the finding
between SDLRs and subjects'

age, previous studies with non-

correctional populations found no relationship between SDLRs
and sex.

Additional studies will be necesary to

systematically assess the relationship of these variables
among this population.

Implications for Future Research
The increasing recognition of self-directed learning
is, and has been throughout most of history,

a predominant

force in terms of adult choices and involvement has
significant implications for adult inmate learners, as well
as for the teachers and the institutions serving these
inmates.
In his discussion of androgogy,

Knowles outlines four

assumptions about adults as learners and as such, they apply
directly to inmate learners.
1.

These are:

Their self-concept moves from one of being a

dependent personality toward being a self-directed human
being.
2.

They accumulate a growing reservoir of experience

that becomes an increasingly rich resource for learning.
3.

Their readiness to learn becomes oriented

increasingly to the developmental tasks of their social
roles.

79
4.

Their time perspective changes from one of

postponed application of knowledge to immediacy of
application,

from one of subject-centeredness to one of

performance-centeredness

(Knowles,

1975, pp.

18-22).

There is little doubt that these assumptions provide a
valuable foundation for understanding self-directed
learners.

The self-directed learner is an active learner,

and the person who develops a high degree of selfdirectedness recognizes that learning is too important to
turn all or most of its planning over to someone else.
This study has shown that different types of
experiences can meaningfully exist at different levels of
formality,

so the correctional educator has different

options in providing varied experiences for adult inmate
learners.

The implications for future research are many and

varied and may include personality and pedagogical
expectations,
authority.

cultural experiences,

and attitudes toward

The following recommendations for future

research could continue to bridge gaps between educational
programs and correctional institutions of Michigan and the
expectations of adult learners.

Recommendations
On the basis of the findings in the study, the
following recommendations are made:
1.

A replication of this research using a different

kind of methodology,
should be pursued.

other than a one-shot case study,

80
2.

The bases of the adult inmates'

be explored in more depth.

judgements need to

Taped interviews and thought-by­

thought ratings would help to determine if certain levels of
formality and kinds of learning experiences are related to
specific bases of judgements.
3.

Ethnographic research should further explore how

attitudes of past schooling and significant teacher models
relate to choices adult inmate learners make regarding level
of formality and kind of learning experience in relationship
to SDLR.
4.

Further research which may contribute to the

refining of the instruments used in this study would be
helpful.

The instrumentation techniques of using pictures

to isolate perceptions and expectations is functional as a
research tool, but further research that identifies how to
compose the content of a picture in relation to the variable
being studied

(level of formality on structure and kind of

learning experience)
5.

is needed.

The relationship between the SDLRS of particular

inmate learner groups and combinations of levels of
formality and kinds of learning experience should be
investigated instead of the overall group means of these
variables.
6.

Personality measurements should be used to explore

relationships between pedagogical expectations and SDLR of
adult inmate learners.

81
7.

Longitudinal studies should be done on a sample of

inmate learners to determine actual SDLR skills.
8.

Research should be conducted with inmate learners

starting at the beginning of the quarter or semester and not
halfway through, as in the present study.
9.

Research should be done to clarify the

relationships between SDLRS and adult inmates'

age and sex.

A great deal of information is needed about adult
inmates'

SDLR before educational practitioners can even

begin to relate to the benefits that can be experienced by
adult learners who participate in SDL endeavors.

The

results of one-way analysis of variance in this exploratory
study failed to uncover any significant relationship between
mean SDLRs and the subjects'

expectations about level of

formality and kind of learning experience.

Although this

study did not provide definitive answers to a complex issue
about adult inmate learners,

it did provide new insights

regarding adult learning, preference for structure and SDLR,
as well as some directions which may help other researchers
to uncover the relationships between SDLR and various
characteristics of adult inmate learners.
It is hoped that these results,

as well as the overall

study, will provide seeds for thought and research which
will better enable educational practitioners to better serve
the inmate learner.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
DAT A COLLECTION SITES

82
IDENTIFICATION OF DATA COLLECTION SITES

The following list identifies the 20 groups comprising
the research subjects.

The particular program the subjects

were involved in and the institutions are identified.

001-009
Academic
GED Preparation
State Prison of Southern Michigan South

0 1 0-0 20

Academic
Jackson Community College Class-College Math
State Prison of Southern Michigan South

021-033
Academic
Jackson Community College Class-Sociology
State Prison of Southern Michigan Central

034-049
Vocational
Maintenance Trades
State Prison of Southern Michigan-Maximum

050-066
Academic
Adult Basic Education
State Prison of Southern Michigan-Central

067-078
Academic
Jackson Community College Class-History
State Prison of Southern Michigan-Central

079-090
Academic
Spring Arbor College Class-Psychology
State Prison of Southern Michigan-South

83
091-102
Academic
Paralegal
Charles E. Egler Facility

103-114
Academic
Spring Arbor College Class-Computer Science
Charles E. Egler Facility

115-124
Academic
Adult Basic Education
Robert G. Cotton Facility

125-136
Vocational
Electronics
Adrian Temporary Facility

137-146
Academic
Community College Class-Criminal Justice
Adrian Temporary Facility

147-155
Academic
GED Preparation
Huron Valley Men's Facility

156-163
Academic
Jackson Community College Class-Business Administration
Camp Waterloo

164-173
Vocational
Automechanics
Michigan Training Unit
184-191
Academic
English Language
State Prison of Southern Michigan Central

84
192-199
Academic
Basic Education
Scott Regional Facility

200-210

Vocational
Food Management Program and Services
Florence Crane Women's Facility

211-220

Academic
GEd Preparation
Florence Crane Women's Facilit6y

221-228
Academic
Sociology
Scott Regional Facility

APPENDIX
SDLRS

85
SDLRS-ABE

N a m e -------------------

Age

S e x ______________________R a c e _________________________D ate of B i r t h ___
Learning C e n te r—-----------------------------------------------------------Today’s D ate —

LEARNING
QUESTIONNAIRE

INSTRUCTIONS: These are some questions about how you like to leam

best and how you feel about learning. Read each sentence and choose
the one answer which is most true for you. Be sure to answer every
question.
There are no wrong answers, so be sure to m ark the answer which tells
you how you feel. Usually the answer that comes to your mind first is
the answer that is true for you.

e L ucy M. G ugllelm lno, 1988

86
j

RESPONSES
I never feel like this.

I feel like this less
than half the time.

Half the time I feel this way.

I usually feel this way.

I feel like this all the time.

U se th e follow in g r e sp o n se s:
1. I n e v e r feel lik e th is.
2. I feel lik e th is le s s th a n h a lf th e tim e.
3. I feel lik e th is h a lf th e tim e.
4. I u s u a lly feel lik e th is.
5. I feel lik e th is all th e tim e.

1

2

3

4

5

I

2

3

4

5

If th ere is so m e th in g I w an t t o learn, I
can find a w a y to le a r n it.

1

2

3

4

5

4.

I lo v e t o ie a r a .

1

2

3

4

5

S.

I b e l i e v e t h a t a b ig p a r t o f m y e d u c a t io n
s h o u ld b e t h i n k i n g a b o u t w h a t k in d o f
p e r s o n I a m a n d w h a t k in d s o f t h in g s I
w a n t t o d o w it h m y life.

I

2

3

4

3

I n e e d it.

1

2

3

4

3

I c a n I e a r a t h i n g s b y m y s e l f b ette r
th an m o st p eo p le m y a g e .

1

2

3

4

5

If th ere is so m e th in g I h ave d ecid ed to learn, I
can fin d tim e for it, a© m a tte r how b u sy I am .

1

2

3

4

5

U n d e r s t a n d in g w h a t I read i s a p r o b le m for m e .

1

2

3

4

3

10.

I k n o w w h e a I n e e d to learn m o r e about s o m e t h in g .

1

2

3

4

3

11.

I th in k b o o k s a r e boring.

I

2

3

4

5

12.

I c a n t h i n k o f m a n y d ifferen t w ays t o le a r a

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

I rea lly e n jo y lo o k in g for th e answ er
to a hard q u e stio n .

1

2

3

4

S

15.

I h ave a lo t o f q u e stio n s ab ou t th in g s.

1

2

3

4

S

10.

I'll be glad w h en I’m fin ish e d learning.

1

2

3

4

5

S a m p le Item:
I lik e c h o c o la te .

(V ) \2J ( 3) {4j ( 5)

ITEMS:
1.

I k n o w w h a t I w a n t to le a r n .

2.

W hen I s e e s o m e th in g th a t
I sta y aw ay from i t .

3.

6.

7.

8.

9.

I d o n ’t understand,

I k n o w w h e r e t o go to g e t I n fo r m a t io n when

about so m e th in g n ew .
13.

14.

. X try to th in k ab ou t h ow th e th in g s X am le a r n in g
w ill f i t in w it h th e p la n s I h a v e fo r m yself.

Go on to next page

87

I never feel like this.

I feel like this less
than half the time.

Half the time 1 feel this way.

I usually feel this way.

I feel like this all the time.

RESPONSES

I’m n o t as in te r e ste d in learning
as so m e o th er p eop le se em to be.

1

2

3

4

5

18.

W hen I d e c id e to find o u t so m e th in g , I do it.

1

2

3

4

5

19.

I lik e to try new t h i n g s , e v e n if I ’m n o t sure
h o w t h e y w ill t u r n o u t .

1

2

3

4

5

20.

I’m g o o d at th in k in g o f new w ays to do th in gs.

1

2

3

4

3

21.

I lik e to th in k about th e fu tu re.

1

2

3

4

5

22.

A hard problem d o e s n ’t sto p m e .

1

2

3

4

5

23.

I can m ake m y se lf d o w hat I th in k I should.

1

2

3

4

5

24.

I am really good at so lv in g p roblem s.

1

2

3

4

5

25.

I b eco m e a le a d e r in learn in g groups.

1

2

3

4

6

26.

I lik e ta lk in g about I d e a s ,

1

2

3

4

5

27.

I d on 't l i k e l e a r n in g t h i n g s t h a t a r e h a r d .

1

2

3

4

5

28.

I r e a lly w a n t to le a r n n e w t h i n g s .

1

2

3

4

5

29.

W h e n I le& ra m o r e , t h e w o r ld b e c o m e s
m o re e x c itin g .

1

2

3

4

5

It’s r e a lly m y Job to I e s r a ~ t h @ sc h o o l
a n d th e tea c h e r s c a n ’t do if for m e.

1

2

3

4

8

31.

I le a r n m a n y n e w t h i n g s on m y o w n each y e ax.

1

2

3

4r

3

32.

I a m a good le a r n e r in t h e c la s s r o o m
an d on m y ow n.

1

2

3

4

3

People w h o k eep le a r n in g a r e le a d e r s ,
b eca u se t h e y k n o w w h at’s h a p p e n in g .

1

2

3

4

5

I lik e to s e e i f I can so lv e hard problem s.

1

2

3

4

3

U s e th e follow in g r e sp o n se s:
1. I n ev er feel lik e th is.
2 . I feel lik e th is le s s th a n h a lf th e tim e.
3 . I feel lik e th is h a lf th e tim e.
4. I u s u a lly feel lik e th is.
5 . I feel lik e th is all th e tim e.

i

ITEMS:
17.

30.

33.

34.

© L ucy &S. Gugllelm lno, 1988

APPENDIX C
INTERPRETATION OF SDLRS

88

H O W T O IN T E R P R E T Y O U R S D L R S S C O R E
Y o u r score is a m e a s u r e of y o u r c u r r e n t level of S e l f - D i r e c t e d L e a r n i n g R e a d in e s s .
If you score is b e t w e e n :

T h e n y o u r re a d in e s s for s e lf-d ire c te d le a rn in g is:

5 8 -1 7 6

Low'

17 7-2 01

B e lo w a v e r a g e

20 2-2 26

' Average

227-251

Above average

25 2 -2 9 0

H ig h

S o m e p e o p le h a v e a lo w level of r e a d i n e s s b e c a u s e th e y h a v e c o n s is te n tly b een ex p o s e d to o t h e r - d ir e c t e d
in s tru c tio n . T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t t h in g to r e m e m b e r a b o u t y o u r sc o re is t h a t it can be im p ro v e d . M o s t p erson s
w it h lo w or a v e r a g e levels of s e l f - d i r e c t e d le a rn in g re a d in e s s c a n in c re a s e th e ir skills w i t h p ractic e.
T h e a v e r a g e s c o r e for a d u lts c o m p l e t i n g th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e is 2 1 4 . T h e s ta n d a r d d e v i a tio n is 2 5 . 5 9 . T h e
S D L R S m e a s u r e s yo u r re a d in e s s for s e lf- d ir e c t e d le a rn in g . R e s e a rc h has s u g g e s te d t h a t in d iv id u a ls w h o
h ave d e v e lo p e d hig h s e lf- d ire c t e d l e a r n i n g skills te n d to p e rf o rm b e tte r in jobs re qu iring :
1. A h ig h d e g r e e of p r o b le m s o lv in g ability.
2. A h ig h d e g r e e of creativity.
3 . A h ig h d e g r e e of c h a n g e .
Perso n s w i t h h ig h S D L R S scores u s u a l ly p r e fe r to d e t e r m i n e th e i r le a rn in g n eed s a n d p la n an d i m p le m e n t
t h e i r o w n l e a r n in g . T h is d o e s n o t m e a n t h a t t h e y w il l n e v e r c h o o s e to be in a s t r u c t u r e d l e a r n in g s it u a t io n
T h e y m a y w e l l c h o o s e tra d itio n a l c o u r s e s or w o r k s h o p s as a p art of a le a rn in g plan.
P e rso n s w i t h a v e r a g e S D L R S sc o re s a r e m o r e likely to be s u c c e s s fu l in m o r e i n d e p e n d e n t s itu a t io n s , but are
not fu lly c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h h a n d lin g t h e e n t i r e process of id e n tifyin g th e ir le a rn in g n e e d s a n d p la n n i n g and
i m p le m e n t i n g t h e lea rn in g .
P e rso n s w i t h b e l o w a v e r a g e S D L R S s c o r e s u su ally p re f e r very s t r u c t u r e d le a rn in g o ptio ns s u ch as lec tu re
an d tra d itio n a l c la ssro o m settings.

89
H O W D O E S Y O U R S D L R S S C O R E C O M P A R E W IT H O TH E R AD U L TS?

Top 50%

Lower 50%

Low er 16%

Low
SDLRS

Top 16%

H igh

Lower 2%

Scores,
137

SDLRS

Top 2%

186

162

214

240

265

S c o re s
290

t

A v e ra g e for A ll A d u lts
You can d e te rm in e h o w y o u r s c o re c o m p a re s w ith th e sc o re s of o th e r a d u lts by looking a t th e d ia g ra m above.
For e x a m p le , if y o u r s core is 2 1 4 , y o u r s e lf-d ir e c te d le a rn in g re a d in e s s is a v e ra g e com pared w ith all adults
w h o h ave ta k e n this test.
You can d e te rm in e w h a t p e rc e n tile y o u r s core is by e x a m in in g th e ta b le b elo w .
If yo u r
SDLRS
S c o re is:
141
143
145
147
149
151
153
155
157
159
161
163
165
167
169
171
173
175
177
179
181
183
185
187
189
191
193
195
197
199
201
203
205
207
209
211

-

.

Y o u a re

If y o u r

in th is
P e rc e n tile :

SDLRS

0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
13
14
16
18
20
22
25
27
30
33
36
39
42

Y o u are

S c o re is:
213
215
2 17
2 19
221
223
225
2 27
2 29
231
233
235
237
239
241
243
245
247
2 49
251
253
255
2 57
259
261
263
265
267
2 69
271
273
275
2 77
279
281
283
2 85

in this
P erc en tile :
45
50
51
53
57
60
63
66
69
72
74
76
79
81
83
85
87
88
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
97
98
98
98
99
99
99
99
99
99*
99*

APPENDIX D
EXPECTATIONS OF LEARNING INSTRUMENT

90

E x p e c t a t i o n of Learning Questionaire
Directions

Look at the follow ing pairs of pictures and answer the question at the
top of the page. Mark y o u r choice in each pair by placing an "X" in the
large box (/_/)
per page.

under the picture of y o u r choice. Please only one "X"

In which of the following situations do you think people are learning the most?

Pair 1

Photo 12
Photo 1

Low F o r m a lity /In p u t

High F o rm a lity -In p u t

In t h i s p i c t u r e , the
students are s i t t i n g
a t a t a b le enjo yin g a
snack. The teacher is
s i t t i n g w ith them and
is discussing some­
t h in g im portant. The
ca ptio n says:

In t h i s f i r s t p ic t u r e ,
the students are seated
In a reg u la r classroom
s e t t i n g . The teacher Is
w r i t i n g on the board.
He says:

"During the break, I ' l l
get wi th you and
e x p la in t h i s more
cle a rly ."

"Note th a t these two
words have s i m i l a r
pronounciation but
d iffe re n t s p e llin g ."

'A"

In which of the following situations do you think people

Pair 2

Photo 3

Photo 11

low F o r m a l it y /S e lf Awareness

Low F o rm a lity /S h a rin g

P ic tu re 11 shows
students s i t t i n g a t a
ta b le a t the back of
the classroom enjoying
a snack and discussing
a t o p ic . The caption
says:

In the t h i r d p ic t u r e ,
two students are
s i t t i n g outsid e o f the
classroom on a lounge
preparing f o r the next
c l a s s . The caption
says:

"During the break,
t a l k w ith oth er people
what you have learned
from p a r t i c i p a t i n g in
the p r o j e c t . "

"During the break, look
through your notes to
make sure you under­
stand the main
concepts."

:'C

In which of the following situations do you think people

Pair 3

Photo 11
Photo 5
High F o r m a l it y /S e lf Awareness
In t h i s p i c t u r e , the
teacher is s i t t i n g in
f r o n t o f the class
w h ile the students are
working on t h e i r own.
The i n s t r u c t i o n is :
"Class, I would li k e
you to make a summary
o f the paragraph a f t e r
you are through reading

11"

Low F orm ality/S haring
,
|

P ic tu re 11 shows
students s i t t i n g a t a
ta b le a t the back o f
the classroom enjoying
a snack and discussing
a t o p ic . The caption
says:
"During the break,
t a l k w ith oth er people
what you have learned
from p a r t i c i p a t i n g in i
the p r o j e c t . "

In which of the following situations do you think people are learning the most?

Pair A

Photo 6
low F o r m a lity /In p u t
In t h is p i c t u r e , the
teacher is a s s is tin g
one student who needs
help understanding
something. The caption •
says:
"Sam, before the next
class begins I ' l l get
w ith you and explain
t h is b e t t e r "

Photo 10
High F o r m a l it y /S e lf -

Awareness
P ic tu re 10 shows
students s i t t i n g a t a
t a b le . The teacher is
s i t t i n g there als o .
The in s t r u c t i o n i s :
"Class, I would l i k e
you to make a l i s t o f
questions t h a t come
to your mi nd a f t e r
reading the passage."

CD
tar-KHi

In which of the following situations do you think people are learning the most?

Pair 5

Photo 9

Photo 7

Low Formal i t y / S e l f awareness

High Form ality/S haring

In t h i s p i c t u r e , two
students are s i t t i n g
in a classroom and
each one is reviewing
his assignment accor­
ding to the i n s t r u c t i o n
which says:
" A f t e r class today, go
over the assignment
and see i f there are
any p o in ts you have
missed b e fore you turn

it in."

In p ic t u r e 7, the tea­
cher is s i t t i n g in
f r o n t o f the class
w h ile the students an
discussing a t o p ic wi*
each o th er. The ca ptii
says:
" Now, p a ir up w ith t h .
person across from you
and explain the reason
f o r your choice o f
answer to the question
on the page"

.1

In which of the following situations do you think people are learning the most?

Pair 6

Photo 4
Photo 1
Low F orm ality/S haring
High F o rm a lit y -In p u t
In t h is p i c t u r e , three
students are s i t t i n g
in the back o f the
classroom and are
having a discu ssion.
The i n s t r u c t i o n says:

In t h is f i r s t p ic t u r e ,
the students are seated
in a re g u la r classroom
s e t t i n g . The teacher is
w r i t i n g on the board.
He says:

"Get w it h someone a f t e r
class and share what
you understand about
the t o p i c . "

vo
(Ti

"Note th a t these two
words have s i m i l a r
pronounciation but
d i f f e r e n t s p e l1i n g . "

'K"

11L11

In which of the following situations do you think people are learning the most?

Pair 7

Photo 9
Photo 8

Low F o r m a l it y / S e lf ­
awareness

High F o r m a lity /In p u t
This p ic t u re shows the
students seated in the
classroom and the tea­
cher teaching, he says:
"Notice t h a t the same
answer can be obtained
by using e i t h e r o f the
two methods to solve
the problem"

In t h is p i c t u r e , two
students are s i t t i n g
1n a classroom and
each one is reviewing
his assignment accor­
ding to the i n s t r u c t i o r
which says:

CD

-J

" A f t e r class today, go
over the assignment
and see i f there are
any points you have
missed before you turn

it in."

"IT

In which of the following situations do you think people are learning the most?

Pair 8

Photo 3

Photo 10

Low F o r m a l it y /S e lf Awareness

High F o r m a l it y / S e lf Awareness

In the t h i r d p i c t u r e ,
two students are
s i t t i n g outside o f the
classroom on a lounge
preparing f o r the next
cla ss. The caption
says:

P ic tu r e 10 shows
students s i t t i n g a t a
t a b le . The teacher is
s i t t i n g there a ls o .
The i n s t r u c t i o n i s :

VO
CO

"Cl ass , I would 1 ike
you to make a l i s t o f
questions t h a t come
to yo u r mind a f t e r
reading the passage."

"During the break, look
through y o u r notes to
make sure you under­
stand the main
concepts."

"

0"

Upll

In which of the following situations do you think people are learning the most?

Pair 9

Photo 2
High Formality-Sharing
Photo 6

The second p ic tu re is
also t h a t o f a regula r
classroom s e t t i n g . In
t h is case, the teacher
is allo win g the s t u ­
dents to share a le a r ­
ning experience. He
says :

Low F o r m a l it y /l n p u t
In t h is p i c t u r e , the
teacher is a s s is t in g
one student who needs
help understanding
something. The caption
says:

" P a ir up w ith the person
across from you and
share how you would
solve the problem.''

CD
CD

"Sam, before the next
class begins I ' l l get
with you and explain
th is b e t t e r "

UQU

"R"

APPENDIX E
UCRIHS CONSENT FORM

100
MICHIGAN STATE U N IV ER SITY
OFFICE OF VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH

EAST LANSING • M ICHIGAN • 48824-1046

A ND DEAN OF TFFE GRADUATE SCHOOL

April 3, 1992

Wills Dixon
921 H. C h erry Lane
East Lansing, MI 48823
RE:

AN EXPLOR AT ORY STUDY OF S E L F - D I R E C T E D LEARNING READIN ESS AND EXPECTATIONS
ABOUT LEARNI NG AMONG A D U L T INMATE LEARNERS IN MICHIGAN, IRB #92-121

Dear Mr. Dixon:
The above projec t is exempt from full UCRIHS review. The proposed research
protocol has been reviewed by a m e m b e r of the UCRIHS committee. The rights and
welfar e of human subjects appear to be protected and you have approval to conduct
the research.
You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you
plan to c o n tin ue this projec t beyond one year, please m a k e provisions for
obtaining approp riate UCRIHS approval one month prior to March 23, 1993.
Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by UCRIHS
prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notifed promptly of any
problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects
during the course of the work.
Thank y ou for bringing this projec t to my attention.
help, please do not hesitate to let me know.

If I can be of any future

Sincerely

iair
^search Involving

_
Human Subjects (UCRIHS)
DEW/pjm
cc:

Dr. Eldon N onnam aker

M S U is a n A f f i r m a t i v e A c t i o n / E q u a l O p p o r t u n i t y I n s t i t u t i o n

APPENDIX F
PARTICIPANTS CONSENT FORM

101

M i c h i g a n State University
G r a dua te Research
Co n sen t Form

In signing the following state m e n t , I agree to participate in the research
project being conduc ted by Wills Dixon, and I acknowledge:
1. That I understand the purposes o f the research project which have been
explained to me;
2. That I understand that my identity will remain anonymous and all results
will remain confidential;
3. That I am voluntarily p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the research project with no e x p e c ­
tation to benifit direct ly from the results;
4. That I am free to w i t h d r a w from participation at any time w i t h o u t
consequence;
5. That if I w a n t to find out a b o u t the results of the study, I may c o ntac t
the teacher or i nstru cto r to w h o m the results will be made available.

S i g n a t u r e : ________________
Date:

Questionaire Number:

102

CON SEN T FORM

I confirm that my p a r t i c ipation in Mr. Dixon's research by allowing my
picture to be taken is voluntary. I u nders tand that I can change my mind and
be free to quit or not to
participate in the study.
strictest confidence only
to me and that my name or

have my picture used even after I have
I u nders tand that the pictures will be
for the purpose of the study w hich has
any personal information a bout me will

started to
used in the
been explained
not be used

in the findings of the study. If I w a n t to find out about the results of the
study I may ask through the A d u l t Educat ion Center, the Depar t m e n t of
A dmini strat ion in the College of Educa t i o n at Michigan State University, or
directly through the researcher.
I understand that this study may not d i r ect ly b e n ifi t me but that it may
help to provide information w h i c h may be of use to a dult educa t i o n services in
the future.

Parti c i p a n t

Date

R e sear cher

Date

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bejot, D.D.
The Degree of Self-Directedness and the Choices
of Learning M e t h o d s . Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Iowa State University, 1981.
Berger, E.
"The Relations Between Expressed Acceptance of
Self and Expressed Acceptance of Others."
Journal of
Abnormal and Social P s y c h o l o g y . 1952, 47, pp. 778-78 2.
Bloom, Benjamin.
Evaluation to Improve L e a r n i n g . New York:
McGraw Hill Book Co., 1982.
Brockett, R.
"Self-Directed Learning and the Hard-to-Reach
Adult."
Lifelong Learning: The Adult Y e a r s . 19 8 3
6.(8), p p . 16-18.
Calvert, George M.
A Study of the Motivation of School
Teachers in Penal Institutions. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1982, pp. 1819.
Carp, A., Peterson and Roelfs, P.
Learning Interests and
Experiences of Adult A m e r i c a n s . Berkeley, California:
Educational Testing Service, 197 2. ERIC Microfiche # Ed
097 421.
Clear, Todd R. and Cole, George F.
American Corrections,
Second E d i t i o n . Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole
Publishing Company, 1990, pp. 345-347.
Cross, K.P.
Adults as L e a r n e r s .
Publishers, 1981.

San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass

Cross, K. Patricia.
"Adult Learners: Characteristics, Needs
and Interests."
Lifelong Learning in A m e r i c a . Edited
by Richard E. Peterson, et al.
San Francisco: JosseyBass Publishers, 1981.
Denmark, Kenneth Lloyd.
Factors Affecting the
Identification, Recruiting and Training of Volunteer 4H Adult Leaders in T e x a s . Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Texas A & M University. 1971.
Dewey, John.
Company,

Experience and E d u c a t i o n .
1938.

103

New York: MacMillan

104

Duguid, S.
"Strategies and Issues for Prison Education."
Convergence: International Journal of Adult Education,
17 (4), 1984, pp. 70-71.
East,

J.
The Relationship Between Self-Directed Learning
Readiness and Life Satisfaction Among the Elderly.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Florida State
University, 1986.

Eggert, James F.
Instructional Activities Which Stimulate
Behavioral Change as Perceived by Adult P a r t i cipants.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State
University.
1991.
Finn,

Jeremy D.
"Expectations and The Educational
Environment." Review of Educational R e s e a r c h .
No. 3, 1972, p. 390.

Vol.

42.,

Fletcher, Harold J.
"Controlling Multiple F Test Errors
With an Overall F Test."
Journal of Applied Behavioral
S c i e n c e . February 1989, Vol. 25, N 1 , p. 101.
Freire, Paulo.
Pedagogy of the O p p r e s s e d .
Seabury Press, 1970.

New York:

Guglielmino, L.M.
Development of the Self-Directed Learning
Readiness Scale.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Georgia, 1977.
Guglielmino, Lucy M. and Guglielmino, Paul J.
Learning
Style A s s e s s m e n t . Guglielmino and Associates, Boca
Raton, Florida, 1982.
Hall,

B.
International Adult Education: Challenges and
R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Paper presented at the National
Adult Education Conference, Louisville, KY, 1984.

H a l l - J o h n s o n , Karen J.
The Relationship Between Readiness
for and Involvement in Self-Directed L e a r n i n g .
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Iowa State
University, 1985.
Hassan, A.M.
An Investigation of the Learning Projects
Among Adults of High and Low Readiness for SelfDirection in L e a r n i n g . Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Iowa State University, 1981.
Hiemstra, R.
"The Older Adult as Learning Participant."
Occational Paper no. 1. ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 198 304, 1980.

105
Hummel, L.
An Investigation of Physician Self-Directed
Learning A c t i v i t i e s . Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1985.
Jarvis, P.
Adult and Continuing Education - Theory and
P r a c t i c e . London: Croom Helm, 198 3.
Johnson, D.
A Study of Law Enforcement Officers'
Participation in Continuing E d u c a t i o n . Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Kansas State University, 1986.
Johnstone, J., and Rivera, R.
Chicago: Aldine, 1966.

Volunteers for L e a r n i n g .

Knowles, M.
Self-Directed Learning: A Guide for Learners
and Teachers.
Chicago: Association P r e s s/Follett,
1975.
Lewis-Beck, Michael S.
"Applied Regression: An
Introduction."
Quantitative Applications in the Social
S c i e n c e s . Edited by John L. Sullivan and Richard G.
Niemi.
Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985.
Light, Gail R.
"Institutional Education Program
Statistics."
Michigan Department of Corrections Annual
R e p o r t , March, 1990.
Light, Gail R.
Michigan Department of Corrections 1990
Annual Report.
Lansing, Michigan.
McCue, James.
A Procedure for Identifying Adult Learners*
Expectations for Curriculum in a Specific Continuing
Education P r o g r a m . Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1982.
McGraw, E.
Older Adult Learners: Reasons and Preferences
for Participating in Organized Learning A c t i v i t i e s .
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Michigan State
University, 1982.
McKean, Rodney Byron.
Adult Learners' Pedagogical
Expectations About Level of Formality and Type of
Learning E x p e r i e n c e . Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977.
Mizirow, J.
"A Critical Theory of Self-Directed Learning."
In S. Brookfield, Self-Directed Learning: From Theory
to P r a c t i c e . (New Directions for Continuing Education)
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985, no. 25, pp. 17-30.
Noren, John W. K.
Self-Directed Learning Projects Among Lay
Ministers in the Mormon C h u r c h . Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1990.

106
Normie, G . , Neale, K . , and Pearson, A.
Strategies for
Education Within Prison Regimes: International and
Comparative A p p r o a c h e s . Programme International
Seminar, Winston House: Sussex, England, 1984.
Penland, P..R.
Self-Planned Learning in A m e r i c a .
(ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 152 987.)
1978.
Piaget, Jean.
Science of Education and the Psychology of
the C h i l d . New York: Grossman Publishers, 1970.
Purkey, William Watson.
Self Concept on School A c h i e v e m e n t .
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey! P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1970.
Russell, J.W.
Learner Preference for Structure, SelfDirected Learning Readiness and Instructional M e t h o d s .
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Missouri at Kansas City, 1988.
Schuttenberg, F. and Trarev, S.
"The Role of Adult
Education in Fostering Self-Directed Learning."
Lifelong Learning: The Adult Y e a r s , 10(5), 1987.
Spirow, J.
"The Future of Religious Education: Personal
Reflections."
Religious Education. 79(1), 1984, pp.
46-51.
Staines, J.W.
"The Self-Picture as a Factor in the
Classroom."
The British Journal of Educational
P s y c h o l o g y . 28, 1958, pp. 97-111.
Tough, A.
The Adult's Learning P r o j e c t s , 2nd ed.
Texas: Learning Concepts, 1979.
Vernor, C.
Adult Education: Theory and M e t h o d .
Adult Education Association, 1962.

Austin,

Chicago:

Walker, J.
The Relationship of Continuing Professional
Education and Pastor Tenure Among Southern Baptist
P a s t o r s . Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, North
Texas State University, 1986.
Ward,

Ted.
"Cognitive Processes and Learning."
Educational R e v i e w . 17(1), 1973, pp. 1-10.

Comparative

Ward,

Ted and Herzog, William J . , Jr.
Effective Learning in
Non-Formal E d u c a t i o n . East Lansing, Michigan: Program
of Studies in Non-Formal Education, Michigan State
University, 1974.

Wilson, Kathleen K.
Expectations About Learning Experiences
in Nonformal Education: Girl Scout Leaders in H a w a i i .
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1978.